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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00009 [234 AD3d 1037]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2025

Burgos v. Darden Rests., Inc.

Jose Burgos was injured while demolishing a walk-in freezer at an Olive Garden restaurant in Broome County. He initiated a lawsuit against Darden Restaurants, Inc., Feinberg-Harris Properties, LLC, N and D Restaurants, LLC, and Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing other claims. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion in part. Plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, based on a supplemental expert affidavit, was granted by the Supreme Court, but it adhered to its original determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion, finding that defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and whether plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division also reversed the Supreme Court's decision to grant plaintiff's motion to renew, ruling that there was no reasonable justification for the delayed submission of new facts.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentMotion to RenewExpert TestimonyElevation-related hazardProximate CauseContributory NegligenceDemolition AccidentConstruction Safety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp.

The Secretary of Labor brought an action against SCA Restaurant Corporation and its owner, Luigi Quarta, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, inadequate record-keeping, and retaliation. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on all claims, determining their violations were willful. The defendants paid fixed weekly salaries despite employees working over 40 hours, falsified records, and threatened employees for testifying. The court awarded $137,867.12 in unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $2,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. A prospective injunction was also issued to prevent future FLSA violations.

FLSA ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecord Keeping ViolationsEmployee RetaliationWillful ViolationsUndocumented WorkersLiquidated DamagesCompensatory DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

In re Mamash Restaurant Corp.

Mamash Restaurant Corporation appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions and a fraud penalty for the audit period of January 1993 through December 1995. The Board's assessment was based on findings that Mamash underreported its employees and failed to produce accurate records. Mamash contended that the Board improperly estimated the number of employees due to physical capacity limitations of its premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board was justified in its estimated assessment given Mamash's failure to produce records and evidence from a tax auditor's survey. The fraud penalty was also upheld as warranted under the circumstances.

Unemployment InsuranceUnderreporting EmployeesFraud PenaltyEstimated AssessmentEmployee RecordsAudit PeriodAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2013

Joseph v. HDMJ Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiff Germelia Joseph sued HDMJ Restaurant, Inc. and its owners for discrimination under ADA, Title VII, NYHRL, and New York Labor Law. After initial dismissals of some claims and individual defendants, HDMJ failed to retain counsel, leading to a default. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson recommended granting default judgment in part for Title VII claims (hostile work environment and retaliation) and denying it for ADA claims, finding no disability under the ADA. District Judge Seybert adopted the R&R, awarding Plaintiff $10,650.00 in back pay, prejudgment interest, $30,000.00 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, and $4,371.75 in attorney's fees. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Title VII discriminationADA claimsHostile work environmentRetaliationDefault judgmentEmotional distress damagesBack payPre-judgment interestAttorney's feesEmployment discrimination
References
136
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lama v. SPK Restaurant, Inc.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits due to respiratory injuries sustained while cleaning up after the 9/11 attacks in New York City. The Workers' Compensation Board identified SPK Restaurant, Inc. as the employer and awarded benefits. SPK and its carrier appealed, contending a lack of substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship. The court found that claimant consistently identified John Gelestathis as his employer, and there was no evidence in the record to establish employment by SPK. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipSubstantial Evidence9/11 CleanupRespiratory InjuryRemittalAppealNew YorkSPK Restaurant IncJohn Gelestathis
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06001 [187 AD3d 1398]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2020

Matter of Conliffe v. Darden Rest.

Kathryn J. Conliffe, a bartender, filed a workers' compensation claim after hitting her head in March 2017, leading to a concussion and anxiety. She subsequently received disability benefits. In June 2018, an employer-retained physician found she could work with light-duty restrictions. A social media investigation later revealed Conliffe was selling LuLaRoe clothing and other crafts online while receiving benefits, which she had not disclosed. The Workers' Compensation Board found a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, imposing a mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification. Conliffe appealed, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the violation and mandatory penalty but reversed the permanent disqualification, deeming it disproportionate given her forthrightness when questioned and her decision not to cash benefit checks after resuming part-time work.

Workers' CompensationFalse StatementMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsFraudAppellate ReviewPenaltySocial Media InvestigationEarning CapacityIndependent Consultant
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. IBM Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs Lucio Alvarez, et al., filed a putative collective action against IBM Restaurants, Roger Bedoian, Daniel Iannucci, and Vincenzo Iannucci, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of the class and to facilitate notice. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, establishing a class of employees who worked for the defendants in the last three years. The court further directed the parties to submit a revised Notice of Pendency, limiting the notice period to three years based on the FLSA's statute of limitations for willful violations, and ordered the defendants to produce a list of putative class members from November 4, 2007, to the present. The court also instructed that the revised notice should include minimum wage claims and deferred the defendants' request for removal of specific defendants.

FLSANew York State Labor LawCollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayMinimum WageWage and HourStatute of LimitationsNotice of PendencyEmployee Rights
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1998

Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for reconsideration in a collective action brought by hourly-paid, non-managerial employees against Ark Restaurants Corp. and its fifteen restaurants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and New Jersey labor laws. Plaintiffs allege a widespread scheme of minimum wage and overtime violations. The court previously authorized class notice, but defendants challenged the scope, arguing a lack of commonality among employees and restaurants. After reviewing new affidavits from plaintiffs demonstrating a factual nexus of common compensation practices and central control by Ark, the court affirmed its earlier ruling. The court authorized notice to be sent to all hourly-paid employees who worked at the 14 New York Ark Restaurants within the last six years and the one New Jersey restaurant within the last three years, for discovery purposes, while reserving the right to decertify or subdivide the class later.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionClass NoticeOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditLabor Law ViolationsEmployment PracticesReconsideration Motion
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 300 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