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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04702
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2022

Chen v. Romona Keveza Collection LLC

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the application of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA) to a photography business (Joseph Chen Inc.) and a model (Dina Kozlovska) against Romona Keveza Collection LLC and related entities for alleged nonpayment. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed whether Joseph Chen Inc. and Dina Kozlovska qualified as "freelance workers" under FIFA. The court modified a March 11, 2021 order by reinstating Kozlovska's claim against all defendants, finding that the lower court erred in dismissing it. It also reversed a June 30, 2021 order, granting RKC's motion to vacate a default judgment, citing public policy for deciding cases on the merits. Appeals regarding other orders and sanctions were dismissed as academic or nonappealable. The case highlights issues of first impression regarding FIFA, particularly concerning corporate entities and workers represented by agents.

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFANonpaymentPhotography ServicesModeling ServicesIndependent ContractorDefault JudgmentDismissal of ClaimsAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen v. Major League Baseball

John Chen sued Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB) under the FLSA and NYLL, claiming minimum wage violations for his unpaid volunteer work during the 2013 Baseball All Star Game's "FanFest". He sought conditional class certification. MLB moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Chen was a volunteer and that FanFest, as a seasonal "amusement or recreational establishment," was exempt from FLSA minimum wage requirements. The court granted MLB's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, finding that FanFest qualified for the Section 13(a)(3) exemption due to its short operational period and status as a distinct physical place of business. Consequently, Chen's motion for collective certification was denied as moot, and his state-law NYLL claims were dismissed without prejudice.

FLSA ExemptionMinimum Wage ClaimsVolunteer EmploymentSeasonal OperationsDistinct Physical Place of BusinessEnterprise vs EstablishmentClass Action DenialState Law Claims DismissalJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02405
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Joseph Chen, Inc. v. Romona Keveza Collection LLC

This case, Joseph Chen, Inc. v Romona Keveza Collection LLC, addresses the application of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA) in New York. Plaintiffs Joseph Chen Inc., a photographer's company, and Dina Kozlovska, a fashion model, sought compensation from Romona Keveza Collection LLC (RKC) for unpaid services. The initial Supreme Court order, which denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, was appealed. The Appellate Division clarified that Chen Inc. qualified as a freelance worker under FIFA, even when utilizing assistants, and Kozlovska's prior agency involvement did not negate her freelance status. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability against RKC, thereby affirming their rights under the Freelance Isn't Free Act.

Freelance Isn't Free ActIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeUnpaid ServicesSingle-Person OrganizationAppellate DivisionLiabilityStatutory InterpretationFashion Industry
References
2
Case No. ADJ7699696
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

George Ramirez, Jr vs. Preston Pipelines, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the applicant's claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits, which was initially denied by the WCJ who excluded Dr. Chen's medical reports as inadmissible "doctor shopping." The applicant appealed, arguing Dr. Chen's reports were admissible and not duplicative of Dr. Lockwood's initial, incomplete report. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the applicant should not be denied benefits solely due to the exclusion of Dr. Chen's reports, and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the applicant to obtain supplemental reporting from Dr. Lockwood to address his SIBTF eligibility.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFLabor Code section 4751inadmissible evidencedoctor shoppingQME evaluationsLabor Code section 5703examining physiciancumulative traumaCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2021

Chen v. 111 Mott LLC

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court order, denying plaintiff Xiyi Chen's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against H&M Contractors, Inc. The Court also granted H&M's cross motion to amend its answer and for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the action against H&M. The Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by not allowing H&M to amend its answer to assert the exclusive remedy defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. It further determined that a prior Workers' Compensation Board decision, finding H&M to be Chen's employer, barred re-litigation of this issue, thus making workers' compensation benefits the exclusive remedy.

Summary judgmentLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative defenseLeave to amend answerCollateral estoppelAppellate reviewEmployer-employee relationshipExclusive remedyProcedural defect
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barak v. Chen

The plaintiffs, injured passengers, sued Kevin Chen and the Carmel defendants (Carmel Car and Limousine Service, Inc., Fast Operating Corp., and Avik Kabessa) for vicarious liability, alleging Chen was an employee. The Carmel defendants moved for summary judgment, contending Chen was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment against Carmel and Fast Operating but later granted it for Kabessa. On appeal, the court reviewed factors for determining an employment relationship, concluding that Carmel and Fast Operating presented prima facie evidence of Chen's independent contractor status, which the plaintiffs' evidence failed to rebut sufficiently. Consequently, the appellate court determined that summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Carmel and Fast Operating should have been granted.

Independent ContractorVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl Test (Employment)Appellate DecisionCar Service CompanyPersonal InjuryAutomobile Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

Donald Murphy, an NBA referee, underwent a physical examination by defendant Dr. Richard Blum and a stress test analyzed by Blum, which was found "abnormal." The results were communicated to the NBA and Murphy's personal physician. Following a a cardiac arrest that ended his career, Murphy sued Dr. Blum for medical malpractice. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no physician-patient relationship existed between Murphy and Dr. Blum because Blum was retained solely by the NBA for an examination, not for treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, upholding that a doctor engaged for examination purposes only assumes duties associated with those functions, not duties concerning treatment or expert opinions.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipDuty of CareComplaint DismissalCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewProfessional Sports InjuryPre-employment ExaminationNo Physician-Patient RelationshipAffirmation of Order
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,350 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