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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01140 [169 AD3d 497]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2019

Maor v. One Fifty Fifty Seven Corp.

In this case, Marshall Maor and Gina Garcia, catering staff for the Russian Tea Room, sued One Fifty Fifty Seven Corp. and RTR Funding Group, Inc. for withheld gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' summary judgment motion against Maor and granted Maor's motion for class certification and to add Garcia as a plaintiff. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing the Labor Law § 196-d claim against RTR Funding and limiting the certified class to workers from 2008-2010 due to changes in the Hospitality Wage Order. The court otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings, including the addition of Garcia as a plaintiff and the basis for establishing employer control over the catering staff.

Class ActionLabor Law § 196-dWithheld GratuitiesEmployer ControlStaffing AgenciesSummary JudgmentClass CertificationAmended ComplaintHospitality Wage OrderAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powell v. Blalock Plumbing & Electric & HVAC, Inc.

William M. Barker dissents from the majority and concurring opinions in a permanent partial disability case. The core issue is whether the employee's award should be two and a half or four times his medical impairment rating under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241. Barker argues the employee is limited to two and a half times because he believes the employee made a meaningful return to work and earned a wage equal to or greater than before the injury. While reluctantly agreeing with the majority's interpretation of "wage" based on precedent, Barker strongly disagrees that the employee failed to make a "meaningful return to work." He asserts that working eighty percent of pre-injury hours, combined with continued employment at the same wage and benefits, constitutes a meaningful return, especially given the employee's ability to work additional hours on his own construction business, which he believes indicates the reduction in hours with the defendant is not due to pain from the injury.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawImpairment RatingWage DefinitionMeaningful Return to WorkTennessee Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationMultiplier CalculationEconomic LossJudicial Dissent
References
4
Case No. 531898
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Narine v. Two Bros. for Wholesale Chicken Inc.

Claimant Budram Narine, a butcher, suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident, leading to a workers' compensation claim against Two Brothers for Wholesale Chicken Inc. and its insurer, Norguard Insurance Company. The carrier initially denied the claim but later withdrew its objections, only seeking an independent medical examination (IME) for additional injury sites. After the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for paraplegia and a frozen right shoulder and directed an IME, the carrier failed to comply and subsequently appealed. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decisions, denying the carrier's application for review due to its failure to preserve issues and noncompliance with regulations, and upholding the amendment of the claim to include a frozen right shoulder and the preclusion of an IME due to the carrier's lack of timely action.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentSpinal FracturesQuadriplegiaFrozen ShoulderIndependent Medical ExaminationProcedural RulesBoard ReviewDue ProcessWaiver
References
14
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04842 [129 AD3d 828]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

Vasquez-Roldan v. Two Little Red Hens, Ltd.

Doroteo Vasquez-Roldan, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails while removing pipes during a renovation. He initiated a consolidated action against BSH, LLC, the premises owner, and Two Little Red Hens, Ltd., the lessee, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the inadequate safety devices, and the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact regarding sole proximate cause. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

Scaffold accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyElevated work siteProximate causeNondelegable dutyPremises liability
References
12
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. Dkt.# 63
Regular Panel Decision

Conner v. Celanese, Ltd.

This case involves two plaintiffs, Hazel Conner and Sytheria Tucker, who sued their employer, Celanese, Ltd., alleging breach of employment contract, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime and retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) for Tucker. The dispute arose from a change in shift structure in 1987 from 8-hour to 12-hour shifts, where employees on 12-hour shifts were paid a lower hourly rate, adjusted to maintain annualized wages, which plaintiffs claim was not properly disclosed. The Court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to factual disputes over wage modification. However, summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the FLSA overtime and retaliation claims, as the 'regular rate' for overtime was the rate actually paid, and alleged actions did not constitute an 'ultimate employment decision.' Summary judgment was also granted for the defendant on Tucker's IIED claim, finding the conduct not extreme and outrageous.

Employment LawBreach of ContractWage DisputeFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime PayFLSA RetaliationSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Texas Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monaco v. CIS Corp. (In Re CIS Corp.)

This adversary proceeding involved a former employee, Patrick R. Monaco, suing debtors CIS and Chapter 11 Trustee James P. Hassett for unpaid vacation pay and commissions. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Counts Two and Three of Monaco's complaint. On Count Two, seeking commissions for two Bell South transactions, the court granted the Trustee's motion, finding Monaco was not entitled to these payments due to unfulfilled contractual approval conditions. On Count Three, Monaco sought liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under New York Labor Law for conceded unpaid commissions and vacation pay. The court granted Monaco's cross-motion for these amounts, ruling that the failure to pay the undisputed wages was willful. Pre-judgment interest was denied, but Monaco was awarded $6160 in commissions, $3000 in vacation pay, $2290 in attorneys' fees, and $2290 in liquidated damages.

CommissionsVacation PaySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawWillful Wage Non-PaymentAttorneys' FeesLiquidated DamagesContract InterpretationBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingEmployee Termination
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 3,957 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