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. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLeon v. Gurda Farms, Inc. (In Re Gurda Farms, Inc.)

This case involves an appeal by thirteen migrant seasonal farmworkers (plaintiffs-appellants), who are creditors of defendants-bankrupts Gurda Farms, Inc. and Stanley Gurda. The farmworkers challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that denied their request to proceed in forma pauperis (without payment of fees) in their appeal. The plaintiffs had previously obtained a judgment against the defendants under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 and were prosecuting that action in forma pauperis when the defendants filed for bankruptcy, automatically staying the civil suit. The core legal question is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which allows individuals to proceed in forma pauperis, is applicable to creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's decision, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Kras. The District Court distinguished this case from Kras, noting the plaintiffs' pre-existing in forma pauperis status and the minimal impact on the bankruptcy system's self-supporting goal. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to prosecute this appeal in forma pauperis.

In Forma PauperisBankruptcy AppealCreditor RightsFarm Labor Contractor Registration ActStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionReferees' Salary ActBankruptcy Fees
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02043
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Matter of Jennifer JJ. v. Jessica JJ.

This case involves an appeal by Jessica JJ. (biological mother) from a Family Court order that terminated her postadoption visitation rights with her son and daughter, who were adopted by Jennifer JJ. (adoptive mother). The biological mother had previously surrendered her parental rights under a postadoption contact agreement. The adoptive mother sought modification, citing significant behavioral issues in both children following visits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding the termination of visitation to be in the children's best interests. The Court noted severe behavioral outbursts in the son, who has autistic spectrum disorder, ADHD, and anxiety, after visits, and a persistent pattern of head banging and nightmares in the daughter correlated with visits. The decision emphasizes the 'best interests of the children' standard for enforcing postadoption contact agreements under Domestic Relations Law § 112-b (4). A dissenting opinion argued that there was insufficient evidence to terminate visitation for the daughter.

Postadoption contactVisitation modificationBest interests of the childParental rights surrenderFamily Court Act Article 6Appellate reviewChildren's behavioral issuesAutistic Spectrum DisorderADHDAnxiety disorder
References
14
Case No. CA 13-01811
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2014

BISH, ROBERT v. ODELL FARMS PARTNERSHIP

Plaintiff Robert Bish, a cement truck driver, sustained injuries while cleaning his employer's truck on property owned by defendant Odell Farms Partnership. Bish filed a Labor Law action, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion in its entirety, and dismissed the complaint. The court held that routine cleaning of a cement truck was not an activity protected under Labor Law § 240 (1) as it did not constitute "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure," nor was it "construction work" under Labor Law § 241 (6). A dissenting opinion argued that issues of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff was engaged in protected construction activity.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyWorker InjurySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewCement Truck CleaningStatutory InterpretationActivity CoverageRoutine Maintenance ExclusionPersonal Injury Lawsuit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waldbaum, Inc. v. United Farm Workers

Waldbaum, Inc., a supermarket chain, sought injunctive relief and damages against the United Farm Workers AFL-CIO (UFW) for picketing its stores. Waldbaum alleged unlawful purpose and illegal acts during the picketing. UFW contended that the picketing constituted a lawful product boycott aimed at persuading customers to refrain from purchasing grapes and lettuce from California growers involved in a labor dispute with UFW, and that such activity was protected. The court found that a labor dispute existed and that product picketing for a lawful labor objective is protected under Labor Law § 807 and the First Amendment. While denying a total injunction, the court granted injunctive relief against specific unlawful acts, including mass entry into stores, blocking parking lot entrances, and falsely chanting 'On Strike.' Other alleged misconduct, such as threats of violence and the use of certain slogans, was either not sufficiently proven or deemed protected speech. The court also enjoined the use of lit candles but allowed other symbolic expressions like effigies. The entry of judgment was reserved pending the completion of a trial on damages.

Product BoycottSecondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentFree SpeechUnfair Labor PracticeUnion ActivityCalifornia Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA)
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Altamont Farms, Inc.

The plaintiffs, migrant farm workers, sought to enforce a Puerto Rican default judgment against Altamont Farms, Inc., a New York apple grower. Altamont contended that the Puerto Rican court lacked personal jurisdiction. Justice Lawrence E. Kahn, presiding in New York, determined that Altamont's voluntary filing of a job offer through the Federal Interstate Clearance System, which was transmitted to Puerto Rico for labor recruitment, established sufficient minimum contacts. The court ruled that Altamont's actions satisfied Puerto Rico's long-arm statute and met due process standards, thereby subjecting it to Puerto Rican jurisdiction. Consequently, the New York court granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the judgment under full faith and credit principles and also ordered the consolidation of related cases.

Personal JurisdictionFull Faith and CreditLong-Arm StatuteMinimum ContactsDue ProcessWagner-Peyser ActMigrant Farm WorkersDefault Judgment EnforcementInterstate Clearance SystemJudicial Consolidation
References
9
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04065 [173 AD3d 105]
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2019

Hernandez v. State of New York

This case addresses the constitutionality of the farm laborer exclusion in New York's State Employment Relations Act. Plaintiffs, led by Crispin Hernandez, alongside the State of New York, challenged this exclusion as violating constitutional rights, including the right to organize and collectively bargain, and equal protection. Defendant New York Farm Bureau, Inc. intervened and successfully moved to dismiss the complaint at the Supreme Court level. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the constitutional right to organize and collectively bargain is fundamental and the farm laborer exclusion fails to withstand strict scrutiny. Consequently, the court declared Labor Law § 701 (3) (a) unconstitutional, though a dissenting opinion argued for its constitutionality under rational basis review and against the immediate declaration.

Constitutional LawLabor LawFarm LaborersCollective Bargaining RightsEqual Protection ClauseDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationStrict ScrutinyRational Basis ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
61
Case No. ADJ8499810
Regular
Mar 26, 2018

EXTRAIN ZARATE vs. JJ FARM LABOR, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Med-Legal Photocopy's Petition for Reconsideration. The original order denied Med-Legal's lien, finding it failed to meet its burden of proof. The Board rescinded this order, returning the case for further proceedings focusing on whether the defendant followed the correct procedure for contesting medical-legal expenses under former Labor Code section 4622. This requires employers to notify providers of contests within 60 days of receiving necessary documents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJMedical-Legal ExpenseSubpoenas Duces TecumLabor CodeMedical TreatmentCompromise and Release
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,978 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