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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Formal Opinion No.

This opinion from the Chairman of the New York Workers' Compensation Board addresses the priority of income execution and income deduction orders, established by the 1985 Support Enforcement Act (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242), against other statutory deductions from workers' compensation awards. Historically, WCL § 33 provided broad exemptions for workers' compensation benefits. However, WCL §§ 206(2) and 25(4)(a) allow for reimbursement of disability insurers and employers for advance payments, respectively, and WCL § 24 establishes liens for attorneys' fees, traditionally enjoying highest priority. The 1985 Act amended WCL § 33 to make benefits subject to support enforcement and also stipulated that income executions and deduction orders take priority over other assignments, levies, or processes. The Board concluded that claims for attorneys' fees and reimbursements by disability insurance carriers and employers are to be deducted first from the workers' compensation award. The support enforcement remedies under CPLR §§ 5241 and 5242 then apply to the balance of the workers' compensation benefits paid to the employee. This approach ensures prompt payment to injured workers and prevents double payment issues.

Workers' CompensationSupport Enforcement ActIncome ExecutionIncome DeductionLien PriorityStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementAttorneys' Fees PriorityCPLR 5241
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeluck v. Board of Education

The case involves a motion by the Attorney-General to dismiss a petition filed by certain teachers. The teachers sought to enjoin the Superintendent of Schools from implementing payroll deductions mandated by Civil Service Law section 210, also known as the Taylor Law, for their alleged participation in a strike. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional, infringing upon rights to free association, speech, and equal protection, and that its payroll deduction provisions constituted a bill of attainder and violated due process. The court, citing precedents, rejected the arguments regarding free association, speech, and equal protection. It also found the due process procedures for payroll deductions sufficient, concluding the law was not a bill of attainder. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employee StrikesPayroll DeductionsDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionConstitutionality of StatuteMotion to Dismiss
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallesandro v. Dallesandro

This opinion addresses a motion by Nationwide Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for the respondent's employer, to vacate a wage deduction order issued on June 26, 1981. The original order directed Nationwide to withhold $95 per week from the respondent's workers' compensation benefits for the support of his former wife and two children, due to the respondent's failure to pay. Nationwide contended that it was not explicitly authorized by Personal Property Law § 49-b and that workers' compensation benefits were statutorily exempt from support claims. The court rejected both arguments, holding that carriers acting as employer agents are bound by the law and that workers' compensation exemptions do not apply to support claims, citing legislative intent evidenced by the repeal of a former exemption. Consequently, the motion to vacate was denied, and the carrier was directed to comply with the original order.

Wage Deduction OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChild SupportAlimonyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Property LawWorkers' Compensation LawCarrier LiabilitySupport EnforcementLegislative Intent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1978

M. H. v. J. H.

This case addresses a motion by the Brewery Workers Pension Fund to vacate a payroll deduction order issued by the Family Court. The order required the Pension Fund to deduct $35 per week from a retired respondent's pension for child support, benefiting the petitioner. The Pension Fund contended that the deduction violated its plan's anti-alienation provision, was not authorized by section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, and was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court denied the Pension Fund's application, ruling that New York State law permits such deductions for child support despite pension plan restrictions and that ERISA's anti-assignment provisions do not prohibit court-ordered garnishments for support obligations, distinguishing them from voluntary assignments.

Child SupportPension GarnishmentERISA PreemptionPayroll Deduction OrderFamily LawSupport EnforcementAnti-Alienation ClausesState Law vs. Federal LawVoluntary vs. Involuntary TransferNew York Judiciary
References
19
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angello v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Labor Ready, Inc. and its subsidiary Labor Ready Northeast, Inc., temporary employment firms in western New York, paid their 18,000 workers daily. Employees could choose payment by check or a cash voucher, redeemable at a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine (CDM) for a fee. The State Department of Labor investigated complaints in 1999 regarding unlawful wage deductions, including these CDM fees. The Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) initially found no violation of Labor Law § 193 (1), deeming the CDM charge a voluntary, separate transaction. However, the Department of Labor commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the fee deduction and wage payment were inseparably connected and violated Labor Law § 193. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the fee deduction, even if optional, constituted an unlawful deduction from wages under Labor Law § 193 (1) (b) and (2), and contravened the legislative intent to protect employees from coercive economic arrangements.

Wage deductionsLabor LawTemporary employmentCash vouchersEmployer feesStatutory interpretationVoluntary deductionsLegislative intentEmployee protectionCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. City of New York

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) promulgated "Health Care Rules" to deduct six cents per fare from taxi drivers for health care services and disability coverage. Petitioners, including taxi drivers, challenged these rules, arguing they were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court annulled the rules but initially denied restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the annulment, finding the TLC exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in establishing the deductions. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the petitioners' request for restitution of the improperly deducted funds.

New York City Taxi and Limousine CommissionHealth Care RulesUltra ViresSeparation of PowersArbitrary and CapriciousRestitutionTaxi DriversDisability CoverageRegulatory AuthorityAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.D.E. Air Conditioning, Inc. v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp.

An independent contractor sued the City of New York for $4,000 deducted from contract payments. The deduction resulted from the plaintiff's failure to meet a contractual requirement to provide 100 person-days for minority trainees on a city project. The plaintiff argued that the breach was due to the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union's refusal to supply minority workers, making performance impossible. However, the court found that the contract terms allowed for such deductions regardless of the reason for non-compliance, rejecting arguments of impossibility or inequity in the penalty. Citing precedent and affirmative action policies, the court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Contract disputeIndependent contractorMinority training programAffirmative actionSummary judgmentImpossibility of performanceBreach of contractDeduction from paymentExecutive ordersPublic contracting
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ins. Co. of North America v. S. E. Senior

The case concerns an appeal by the Chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board from an order that annulled two assessments made against an insurance carrier. The assessments were based on the carrier's total compensation payments, but the carrier argued for a deduction of recoupment payments received from other employers for apportioned liability in occupational disease cases under Workmen's Compensation Law section 44. The Chairman contended that no such statutory deduction existed. The court determined that the term “compensation” for assessment purposes did not intend for payments to be counted twice (by both payee and payor). Consequently, the insurance carrier is entitled to deduct these recoupment payments from its total compensation payments when calculating the assessments. The order and judgment granting the carrier's petition and annulling the assessments were affirmed.

Workers' Compensation AssessmentsRecoupment DeductionOccupational Disease LiabilityStatutory ConstructionInsurance Carrier ObligationsArticle 78 AppealCompensation ApportionmentAssessment Calculation MethodologyEmployer ReimbursementFiscal Year Assessments
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koljenovic v. Marx

Plaintiffs Halit and Safet Koljenovic sued defendants David Marx and his corporate entities for unpaid overtime wages under FLSA and New York Labor Law, and Halit also claimed unauthorized wage deductions. Defendants sought partial summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs were exempt from overtime as live-in janitors and that no direct wage deductions occurred. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the overtime claim for work in their resident buildings, but denied it for work performed in other buildings. The motion for summary judgment on Halit's unauthorized wage deduction claim was denied, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding compelled side payments. The case will proceed on the remaining claims.

Wage and HourOvertime PayWage DeductionFLSANew York Labor LawBuilding SuperintendentsJanitorial ExemptionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawQueens
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 174 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