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
Sep 26, 2005

Morales v. D & A Food Service

In this case, an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant Gamillo M. Santomero, III, a landlord. The plaintiff was injured while performing repairs for defendant D & A Food Service, the tenant, without the landlord's knowledge or consent, in violation of the lease. The court ruled that the landlord, an out-of-possession owner, could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the absence of a nexus between the owner and the worker. Precedent, including Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., was cited to support the finding that an owner must have knowledge or consent of the work to be held liable, as the statute aims to place responsibility on those best able to control the workplace.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Out-of-Possession OwnerLandlord LiabilityLack of KnowledgeConsent to WorkLease ViolationLadder FallNexus RequirementAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reese v. Sysco Food Services-Albany

The claimant, injured in 2007 while working for a food service company, initially received temporary partial disability payments for back and left hamstring injuries. A consequential injury to his right fifth metacarpal was later added to the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market in May 2010 by not returning to a light duty assignment despite medical clearance. After further injuries and employment termination in 2012, the claimant sought an award for reduced earnings, arguing his current job was less demanding. Both the WCLJ and the Board denied this request, ruling that his reduction in earnings was not causally related to his compensable disability, a decision which was affirmed on appeal due to substantial evidence.

Reduced earningsVoluntary removal from labor marketLight duty assignmentCausally related disabilityWorkers' compensation appealBack injuryLeft lower extremity injuryRight fifth metacarpal fractureLeft knee problemsMedical clearance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vandewalker v. Quandt's Food Service Distributors, Inc.

Plaintiff Helen M. Vandewalker initiated legal action against Quandt’s Food Service Distributors, Inc., alleging gender discrimination under Title VII, unlawful retaliation related to a Workers’ Compensation claim, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a New York Human Rights Law violation. Vandewalker contended that her termination followed a workplace injury and was discriminatory. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Additionally, the court dismissed the voluntarily withdrawn state claims and upheld a magistrate judge's order allowing the plaintiff to amend her complaint to include the Human Rights Law claim, finding the amendment neither futile nor prejudicial.

Gender DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkers' Compensation RetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationHuman Rights LawPretextPrima Facie CaseDiscriminatory IntentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
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

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involved a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by an employer association to challenge a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The IBA had confirmed a minimum wage order from the Commissioner of Labor, which increased the cash wage for food service workers. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner lacked authority to set a wage lower than legislatively mandated and was constrained in considering other factors. The court converted the proceeding to a direct appeal and affirmed the IBA's determination, concluding that Labor Law § 655 (5) prohibits setting a cash wage less than that specified in Labor Law § 652 (4). The court found the petitioner's arguments without merit.

Minimum WageFood Service WorkersLabor Law InterpretationStatutory AuthorityWage Board ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborCPLR Article 78 ConversionJudicial Review of Agency ActionEmployer Association Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50

Pathmark, an employer, initiated a lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342 50, a labor union, due to an ongoing labor dispute. The core of Pathmark's complaint alleged breach of contract and various tortious acts by the Union, stemming from disagreements over the interpretation and application of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The central legal question before the court was whether Pathmark's claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the CBA, as the Union contended that the grievance and arbitration procedures were exclusively for employees. Applying the strong presumption of arbitrability in labor law, the court meticulously analyzed Article XXIII of the CBA, concluding that its broad language encompassed employer-initiated disputes despite the primary focus on employee grievances. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to dismiss Pathmark's federal contract claims, compelling arbitration, and subsequently declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Labor disputeArbitrationCollective bargaining agreementEmployer claimsUnion rightsGrievance procedureArbitrabilitySecond CircuitMotion to dismissFederal court jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Electrical Contractors' Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This decision addresses an application filed by Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a defendant in the original action. The union sought to quash the summons and service of other legal papers, asserting misnomer and improper service. The court noted that under Section 13 of the General Associations Law, actions against unincorporated associations must be brought against the president or treasurer, and service must be made upon these officers. Despite the plaintiff naming the union's president and treasurer in its papers, service on the local union was made on its general counsel and its financial secretary individually, not its president or treasurer. The court found this service insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the local union and, consequently, granted the motion to quash the service.

JurisdictionService of ProcessUnincorporated AssociationMisnomerGeneral Associations LawCivil Practice ActMotion to QuashLabour UnionStatutory InterpretationProcedural Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S. Strauss, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 342

S. Strauss, Inc. filed a motion to stay arbitration initiated by the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, Local 342. Strauss argued the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was a 'sham' and its arbitration clause unenforceable. The District Court denied the motion, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel based on a previous Southern District of New York ruling that affirmed the CBA's validity. The court also rejected Strauss's 'sham' argument on its merits and dismissed the 'primary jurisdiction' doctrine argument. Consequently, Strauss's motion was denied and the case dismissed.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective BargainingContract DisputeCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionFederal CourtsUnion RepresentationMotion PracticeInjunctive Relief
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 25,430 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