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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Armac Industries, Ltd.

This case addresses a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: whether a defendant manufacturer's (Armac Industries, Ltd.) pretrial agreement with an injured plaintiff, admitting 2% liability and limiting enforcement of judgment, constitutes a 'release from liability' under General Obligations Law § 15-108 (c). The plaintiff was injured while employed by General Thermoforming Corporation (GTC), and Armac initiated a third-party action against GTC for contribution and indemnification. The Court held that the agreement did constitute a 'release from liability,' thereby forfeiting Armac's right to contribution from GTC. The decision emphasizes that such agreements undermine the quid pro quo system of § 15-108 and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, allowing indirect recovery from employers beyond statutory benefits.

Release from LiabilityGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108Workers' Compensation LawContributionPretrial AgreementTort LawEmployer ImmunityStatutory InterpretationThird-Party ActionExclusive Remedy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Marzovilla v. New York State Industrial Board of Appeals

Petitioners Nicola Marzovilla and Valodome, Inc., challenged a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which found they violated Labor Law § 196-d by misappropriating employee tips at their New York City restaurant, iTrulli. The misappropriation occurred from 2001 to 2005 through the inclusion of senior employees, Gianni Linardic and Alex Steidl, in a mandatory tip pool, despite their ineligibility due to supervisory roles or non-service primary duties. The Department of Labor (DOL) initially assessed approximately $407,000 in owed wages, interest, and penalties, a finding largely upheld by the IBA. The Appellate Division confirmed the IBA's decision, concluding that Linardic exercised "meaningful authority" over other servers and Steidl's duties were not principally customer service, thus rendering both ineligible for tip sharing. Consequently, the determination of tip misappropriation was upheld, and the petitioners' CPLR article 78 petition was dismissed.

Tip PoolingWage MisappropriationLabor Law § 196-dIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewRestaurant IndustrySupervisory EmployeesTip EligibilityCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bush Industries, Inc.

This case involves a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Bush Industries, Inc., a furniture manufacturer. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders objected to the plan, arguing it violated the absolute priority rule, proposed improper general releases, and lacked good faith due to a "golden parachute" for the principal officer, Paul S. Bush. Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki determined that the debtor's enterprise value did not exceed outstanding claims, thus upholding the absolute priority rule regarding pre-petition stock cancellation. However, the court found that the renegotiated employment contract for Paul Bush and the proposed releases for corporate management constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by officers and directors, violating the good faith requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3). Consequently, the court denied confirmation of the plan in its present form, requiring the debtor to demonstrate good faith in a revised plan, possibly by distributing the premium secured by management to all shareholders.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyPlan of ReorganizationAbsolute Priority RuleFiduciary DutyCorporate GovernanceGolden ParachuteValuation MethodologiesDiscounted Cash Flow AnalysisComparable Companies AnalysisExit Multiple
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. v. New York State Board of Industrial Appeals

The case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a nationwide company, which administers workers’ compensation and general liability claims, against the State Board of Industrial Appeals. The company challenged a Department of Labor determination, later modified by the Board, that its claims examiners were not exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. The core issue was whether the examiners qualified for an administrative capacity exemption under FLSA. Applying the "short test" and the "production/administrative dichotomy," the court concluded that the examiners were "production workers" as their primary duty was to produce the services the employer offered. Consequently, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination, confirmed the Board's decision, and dismissed the petition.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionAdministrative CapacityClaims ExaminersLabor Law ViolationCPLR Article 78Production WorkersState Board of Industrial AppealsWage and Hour DisputesDiscretion and Independent Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patricia v. Delford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Carrie Patricia brought an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against her former employer, Delford Industries, Inc., and her bargaining representatives, Local 546 and the International Union. Patricia alleged wrongful termination by Delford and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions for their handling of her grievance. The court considered motions for summary judgment from all parties and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint. The motions for summary judgment by Local 546, Delford, and Patricia were denied. The International Union's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint was also granted.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment Benefits Claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1994

Washington v. New York City Industrial Development Agency

An employee of Par Par Contracting was injured and sued the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA). IDA, insured by National Casualty, then filed a third-party action against Par Par for contribution and indemnification, relying on Par Par's State Insurance Fund coverage. The Supreme Court denied Par Par’s motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, dismissing the third-party action related to National Casualty’s insurance coverage. The dismissal was based on the antisubrogation rule, which prohibits an insurer from pursuing a subrogated action against its own insured for claims covered under the original policy, even if separate insurance policies for common law indemnity exist.

antisubrogation ruleinsurance disputethird-party liabilitysummary judgment motionWorkers' Compensationemployer liabilitycontractual indemnificationcommon law indemnificationappellate reversalNew York law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1988

Evans v. Chelsea Industrial Park, Inc.

Mark Evans, a construction worker for Quality Steel Buildings, Inc., was injured after falling from a ladder while attempting to cut support cables on premises owned by Chelsea Industrial Park, Inc. and leased by Paraflex Industries, Inc. Evans moved for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging negligence due to the absence of safety lines or nets. The Supreme Court, Orange County, denied his motion, citing material issues of fact regarding the height of the plaintiff's work, the ladder's height, and its placement. The defendants, Chelsea Industrial Park, Inc. and Paraflex Industries, Inc., also cross-moved for summary judgment against the third-party defendant Quality Steel Buildings, Inc., which was also denied. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the factual disputes justified the denial of summary judgment for all parties involved.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLabor Law 240(1)Premises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate DecisionMaterial Issues of FactNegligence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,980 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