CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. ADJ11226838
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

DAVID MACK vs. ALICE MACK, FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous Findings and Orders due to defective service on the applicant, making the petition timely. The core issue is whether the applicant, who performed renovation work, was an employee or a residential employee under Labor Code section 3351(d). The WCAB found insufficient evidence to determine if the work was performed in the course of the owner's trade, business, or occupation. The case is returned for further proceedings and a new decision, potentially involving the Uninsured Employer Benefit Trust Fund.

Labor Code Section 3351(d)residential employeetrade or businessinsurance coveragepetition for reconsiderationdefective servicetimelinessMinutes of HearingUninsured Employer Benefit Trust Fundemployment status
References
4
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. 08 Civ. 10467; 10 Civ. 6067
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Oil Trading NV v. PRSI Trading Co. LP

Astra Oil Trading N.Y. (AOT) filed two actions against PRSI Trading Company L.P. (PRSI Trading) seeking indemnification and attachment of funds related to a $156 million guarantee payment. PRSI Trading moved to dismiss both actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to vacate the attachment, also requesting damages and attorneys' fees. The court granted dismissal for the first action (08 Civ. 10467) due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction at the time of filing, which a subsequent change in defendant's ownership could not remedy. However, it denied dismissal for the second action (10 Civ. 6067), noting proper diversity existed at its filing. The court allowed a new attachment in the second action to preserve the status quo, citing the defendant's continuous delays and acknowledged debt. Furthermore, the court denied PRSI Trading's claims for damages and attorneys' fees for wrongful attachment, emphasizing AOT's good faith and the complex legal issues surrounding corporate citizenship for diversity purposes.

Diversity JurisdictionAttachment OrderIndemnification ClaimCorporate CitizenshipPrincipal Place of BusinessSubject Matter JurisdictionAlien CorporationsArbitration Award EnforcementCollateral EstoppelWrongful Attachment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a car inspector, experienced incapacitating neck, back, and leg pain in 2010, following non-work-related automobile accidents in 1988 and 2003. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing his physical and psychiatric conditions were an occupational disease due to repetitive work tasks. Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy, precluding them from submitting evidence on the course of employment, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board disallowed the claim, deeming the treating physicians' causation opinions incredible. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating the claimant still bore the burden of proving a causal link, and the Board was justified in rejecting the medical evidence as incredible, thus supporting the finding of no causally related occupational disease.

Occupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewNotice of ControversyBurden of ProofCredibilityRepetitive TasksSpinal Problems
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,896 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational