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

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nautilus Insurance v. Matthew David Events, Ltd.

Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Matthew David Events (MDE) in a personal injury action brought by Timothy Shea. Shea, an employee of a subcontractor hired by MDE, was injured while working at an event planned by MDE. Nautilus disclaimed coverage due to MDE's failure to provide timely notice and an employee exclusion in the policy. The motion court denied Nautilus's summary judgment, finding the employee exclusion ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, holding that the employee exclusion, which broadly defined 'employee' to include those 'contracted for' the insured, clearly applied to Shea, an employee of MDE's subcontractor. The court concluded that Nautilus had met its burden in demonstrating the exclusion's applicability.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory Judgment ActionEmployee Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationSubcontractor Employee InjuryTimely Notice ProvisionSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate Court DecisionCommercial General Liability PolicyBodily Injury Claim
References
21
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. 698 F.Supp. 452
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1988

Tunis v. Corning Glass Works

Catherine Tunis, a process engineer at Corning Glass, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a hostile work environment due to pinup photographs, gender-based language, and catcalls, and that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints and an EEOC filing. The court found that the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action regarding the hostile environment claims. Additionally, the court determined that Tunis failed to demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by Corning Glass for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, all of Tunis's claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentGender BiasWrongful TerminationFederal Lawsuit
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrales v. Wonder Works Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working in an elevator shaft used for demolition debris disposal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial order granted the defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on certain Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating summary judgment for the plaintiff on claims predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a)(1), 23-1.20, and 23-2.5 (a), finding the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of entitlement. However, the court also awarded summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), concluding that this provision lacked the specificity required for such a cause of action.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkConstruction AccidentFalling DebrisIndustrial CodeComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewKings County
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01347
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Treacy v. Inspired Event Productions, LLC

Peter Treacy, a Teamsters' Union laborer, was injured on a loading dock when a crate fell on him while unloading materials for an event. He subsequently filed claims against multiple defendants under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Treacy's claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Treacy was not a covered worker under the Labor Law as his duties were limited to unloading materials on a permanent loading dock and he was not involved in the actual construction being performed at the site.

Worker injuryloading docksummary judgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)construction workerscope of employmentappellate reviewTeamsters' Unionpremises liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Pecker Iron Works and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the primary versus excess coverage obligations of two liability insurance carriers. Pecker, designated as an 'additional insured' under Upfront Enterprises' policy with Travelers, sought primary coverage after an Upfront worker was injured on a construction site. Travelers contended its policy provided only excess coverage for additional insureds unless explicitly designated as primary in a written contract. The Supreme Court initially agreed with Travelers, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage for additional insureds is presumed primary unless unambiguously stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Pecker was entitled to primary coverage.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSubcontractor AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceConstruction ProjectAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 7,150 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