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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Buiza

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which determined that delivery drivers for Dependable Delivery, Inc. were employees, not independent contractors, and therefore entitled to unemployment benefits. The court examined various factors indicative of control exercised by Dependable, including established delivery routes, fixed weekly payments, Dependable handling customer relations and bearing risk of loss, and the inclusion of drivers under its workers' compensation and automobile liability policies. Despite the presence of some factors suggesting an independent contractor relationship, the court found sufficient evidence to support the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipDelivery ServicesSubstantial EvidenceControl TestWorkers' CompensationAutomobile LiabilityAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02467
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Chichester (Northeast Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case involves an appeal from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Northeast Logistics, Inc. (NEL) liable for unemployment insurance contributions for Sledge Chichester and similarly situated drivers. Chichester, an owner-operator driver for NEL, applied for unemployment benefits after ceasing delivery services. The Department of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Chichester was an employee of NEL, citing NEL's exercise of control over its drivers, including setting delivery expectations, deducting fees, and imposing non-disclosure agreements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employer-employee relationship, despite some evidence to the contrary.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceOwner-Operator AgreementDelivery ServicesUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewControl TestLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Charles A. Field Delivery Service, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order that affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's (UIAB) decision classifying a delivery service's drivers as independent contractors, exempting the service from unemployment insurance contributions. The Court found the UIAB's determination arbitrary and capricious for failing to adhere to its own prior precedents (Matter of Di Martino and Matter of Wells) or provide a rational explanation for reaching a different result on essentially similar facts. The case was remitted to the UIAB for further proceedings, requiring it to either conform to its precedent or justify its departure.

unemployment benefitsemployment lawadministrative reviewagency discretionjudicial precedentstatutory interpretationNew York lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor statusdue process
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

Claim of Harris v. Poughkeepsie Journal

The decedent, a newspaper delivery driver, was found dead at work after choking on food. The Workers' Compensation Board denied death benefits, ruling that his death resulted from a purely personal act, thereby rebutting the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption that an unwitnessed death in the course of employment arises out of employment. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that eating during a shift was sufficiently work-related, especially since the employer did not provide meal breaks and drivers often ate on the go to meet delivery schedules. Additionally, the decedent was required to wait at the employer's premises during a holiday weekend, and eating was deemed a reasonable activity during this waiting period, thus the Board's decision lacked support.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentPersonal PursuitArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Law § 21Presumption of CausationUnwitnessed Accidental DeathEmployer's Premises
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mihalaris v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

A limousine driver, who leased his vehicle from Augie’s Auto Repair, Inc. (Augie) and was dispatched by UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. (UTOG), was assaulted and injured during a vehicle theft while working. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the driver a general employee of Augie and a special employee of UTOG, apportioning liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding the driver solely an employee of UTOG, discharging Augie based on an interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (4) regarding lessor/owner control. UTOG and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board misapplied the law concerning taxicab drivers, contending the control-related factors only apply when the owner operates the taxicab 40+ hours weekly. The Appellate Court reversed the Board's decision, stating the Board incorrectly applied the statute by requiring control factors for Augie when the 40-hour exception was not met, and remitted the matter for a decision consistent with the controlling statute.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployment RelationshipLimousine DriverTaxicab DriversStatutory InterpretationLessor-Lessee RelationshipGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Webley

Graphic Transmissions, Inc., a package delivery service, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that the company's owner-drivers were employees, not independent contractors, a finding Graphic challenged as lacking substantial evidence. Graphic argued that it only exercised incidental control over the results produced by drivers, not the means. However, the Board presented evidence of an employer-employee relationship, including driver identification cards, Graphic's control over customer access and rates, payment for workers' compensation, and requirements for driver appearance and vehicle maintenance. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the evidence constituted substantial support for the finding of an employer-employee relationship and rejecting Graphic's other arguments regarding workers' compensation costs and the claimant's self-employment.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' CompensationSubstantial EvidenceAppeal BoardDelivery ServiceControl TestJudicial ReviewLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re La Nova Pizzeria, Inc.

La Nova Pizzeria, Inc. appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had assessed them for additional unemployment insurance contributions related to their delivery drivers. La Nova contended that the drivers were not employees. The court found that the Board’s decision lacked substantial evidence to prove an employment relationship, noting that drivers used their own vehicles, paid for food, and could work for other restaurants, indicating a lack of control by La Nova. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriversControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppeal BoardReversalRemittalErie County
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 633 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