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. No. 13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2019

The People v. Omar Alvarez

Omar Alvarez appealed the denial of his writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He claimed his original appellate counsel failed to challenge his 66 ⅔ years to life sentence as unduly harsh, submitted a deficient brief, and communicated poorly. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that counsel provided meaningful representation, highlighting the discretion afforded to appellate attorneys in selecting arguments. The court found no strategic reason for counsel to pursue an excessive sentence claim given the violent crimes and Alvarez's conduct. Dissenting opinions, however, criticized counsel's overall performance, particularly the brief's quality and the missed opportunity to argue for a sentence reduction, especially considering the defendant's youth at the time of the offense.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselAppellate CounselCoram NobisSentence ReviewUnduly Harsh SentenceMeaningful RepresentationCriminal Procedure LawCourt of AppealsNarcotics TraffickingHomicide Conviction
References
50
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02025
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2023

Velazquez-Guadalupe v. Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc.

The case Velazquez-Guadalupe v Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc. addresses the scope of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 regarding third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against employers. The Appellate Division, Second Department, clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination establishing an employer-employee relationship bars such claims, even if the third party did not participate in the WCB proceedings, overturning the Supreme Court's prior reliance on Baten v Northfork Bancorporation, Inc. The court granted CDW Carpentry, Inc. summary judgment on these cross-claims, as the WCB found it to be Velazquez-Guadalupe's employer. However, the court affirmed allowing defendants to assert a cross-claim for breach of an oral agreement to procure insurance against CDW, noting such agreements are distinct from indemnification, and affirmed denying JSK Construction Corp.'s summary judgment motion as premature for lack of discovery.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party IndemnificationContribution ClaimsEmployer ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionWritten Contract IndemnificationCollateral EstoppelSummary Judgment MotionBuilding Collapse InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1998

Alvarez v. Jamnick Realty Corp.

The plaintiff Orlando Alvarez, an employee of Tru-Tone Metal Products, Inc., was injured at work and received Workers’ Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs then commenced an action against Jamnick Realty Corp., the building owner, and James Murtha, the sole shareholder of both Tru-Tone and Jamnick, alleging failure to maintain the premises. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike the affirmative defense of Workers' Compensation exclusivity. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment in favor of James Murtha, dismissing the complaint against him, and denying the plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike the affirmative defense, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Jamnick Realty Corp. being an alter ego of Tru-Tone.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilPremises LiabilityShareholder LiabilityAppellate DivisionAffirmative DefenseMotion to Strike
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. IBM Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs Lucio Alvarez, et al., filed a putative collective action against IBM Restaurants, Roger Bedoian, Daniel Iannucci, and Vincenzo Iannucci, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of the class and to facilitate notice. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, establishing a class of employees who worked for the defendants in the last three years. The court further directed the parties to submit a revised Notice of Pendency, limiting the notice period to three years based on the FLSA's statute of limitations for willful violations, and ordered the defendants to produce a list of putative class members from November 4, 2007, to the present. The court also instructed that the revised notice should include minimum wage claims and deferred the defendants' request for removal of specific defendants.

FLSANew York State Labor LawCollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayMinimum WageWage and HourStatute of LimitationsNotice of PendencyEmployee Rights
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04241
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2017

Alvarez v. Vingsan Ltd. Partnership

Franklin G.S. Alvarez was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Vingsan Limited Partnership and leased by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. He, along with his wife, sued alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. Initially, procedural errors led to denials of summary judgment motions. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied JP Morgan's cross-motion to dismiss that cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and JP Morgan failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ladder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityProximate CauseWorker SafetyUnsecured LadderReargument
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. City of New York

Plaintiff Gil Q. Alvarez, a New York City police officer, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the NYPD and the City of New York. Alvarez contended that the defendants retaliated against him for refusing to participate in a police brutality cover-up and for filing a prior discrimination lawsuit. District Judge Chin denied the requests, ruling that Alvarez failed to show irreparable harm and was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court noted Alvarez's attorney had invited the investigation to clear his client's name and that many claims were likely barred by a prior settlement and general release. Federalism and comity considerations also weighed against federal court intervention in the ongoing municipal agency inquiry.

RetaliationPolice MisconductInternal Affairs InvestigationTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionFirst Amendment RightsTitle VII ClaimNew York State Human Rights LawIrreparable HarmLikelihood of Success
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. Bowen

Plaintiff Jose Alvarez challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court determined that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to ensure Alvarez's voluntary waiver of counsel, did not inform him of his rights to call and cross-examine witnesses, and inadequately developed the record. Specifically, the ALJ's questioning of a medical expert and a vocational expert was deemed insufficient, and the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert was flawed. Consequently, the court reversed the Secretary's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing consistent with its opinion.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeRemandRight to CounselDue ProcessCross-examinationVocational ExpertMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
23
Case No. ADJ2977853 (SAC 0127853)
Regular
Dec 03, 2010

JORGE ALVAREZ vs. PEREZ FARMS & ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant Jorge Alvarez's petition for reconsideration of a prior Board decision that deferred calculation of a life pension and associated attorney's fee. The Board dismissed Alvarez's petition, finding it premature and not ripe for reconsideration as it did not challenge a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The prior decision simply returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, meaning no party was yet aggrieved. Therefore, the Board found the petition to be procedurally improper and dismissed it.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLife PensionAttorney's FeeFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilityWCJFindings Award OrderCost of Living Adjustment
References
3
Case No. ADJ10037291
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

Adan Alvarez vs. Victor Manuel Martinez, Justine Marie Martinez

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a decision that allowed applicant Adan Alvarez to pursue a workers' compensation claim against Victor Manuel Martinez and Justine Marie Martinez despite his failure to file a proof of claim in the employers' bankruptcy proceedings. UEBTF contended that Alvarez was required to file a proof of claim in a Chapter 7 asset bankruptcy. The Appeals Board denied UEBTF's petition, affirming its prior decision. The Board distinguished this case from previous rulings, concluding that an employee's failure to file a proof of claim in bankruptcy is not fatal to their workers' compensation claim if no award exists at the time of the bankruptcy discharge.

UEBTFbankruptcyproof of claimChapter 7 assetChapter 7 no assetdischarge injunctionLabor Code section 3716Ortiz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Slali v. RuizWCJ
References
9
Case No. ADJ9419247
Regular
Aug 09, 2016

GUADALUPE ALVAREZ vs. CITY WALL CONSTRUCTION, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding the applicant was not an employee of City Wall Construction. The applicant claimed a work injury to his back and foot, but the judge found his testimony regarding employment lacked credibility against the defendant's consistent testimony. The Board also rejected the applicant's request to reopen based on newly discovered evidence, as he failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering and presenting this information at trial. Therefore, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an employer-employee relationship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuadalupe AlvarezCity Wall ConstructionThe Hartford Insurance CompanyADJ9419247denial of reconsiderationindustrial injuryconstruction workeremployment statusnewly discovered evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 137 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