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. ADJ1938020 LAO 0877660
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

FRANCISCO PEREZ vs. KING TACO RESTAURANT, INC., AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

Lien claimant New Age Imaging sought reconsideration of a finding that defendant King Taco Restaurant fully satisfied its lien for $\$ 595.00$. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an endorsed check or testimony of mailing, to prove lien claimant received the payment. The WCJ's original finding is rescinded and the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record on payment and receipt. This ensures a fair hearing and substantial justice for all parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderBurden of ProofMailing PresumptionEvidence Code 641Due ProcessFair HearingFurther Proceedings
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05862 [152 AD3d 806]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp.

The plaintiff, Rachina Phillips, sustained personal injuries after boiling water spilled on her right foot while preparing hot foods within the scope of her employment at a Taco Bell restaurant. She initiated an action against Taco Bell Corp. and Yum! Brands, Inc., alleging negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff's employer, Taco Bell of America, LLC, was a subsidiary or sister company and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, or that they lacked ownership/control over the premises. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, determining that the affidavits submitted by the defendants did not qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and failed to conclusively establish a defense or refute the plaintiff's factual allegations for both CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (7).

Personal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAlter Ego LiabilityWorkers' Compensation DefensePremises Liability
References
12
Case No. 532311
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Katherine King

Katherine King appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her reduced earnings awards after June 22, 2014. King sustained a work-related back injury in 2006 while employed by the Department of Corrections and concurrently as a waitress and baker, leading to reduced earnings awards based on her cumulative average weekly wage. She ceased working for the Department in 2014 due to an unrelated disability and had not worked since. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling that there was no basis to continue awards, as her retirement was unrelated to her disability and she failed to show reattachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division reversed and remitted the matter, finding the Board's reasoning incomplete regarding lost wages from her restaurant job and the need to demonstrate reattachment to the labor market, especially considering the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w).

Reduced EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardLabor Market AttachmentConcurrent EmploymentCausally Related Lost WagesDisability RetirementAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Burger King Corp.

The defendant, Burger King Corp., applied for an amendment to the findings of fact from a December 10, 1980 Memorandum Decision and Order. The court granted the Rule 52(b) motion to supplement previous findings, particularly regarding defendant's record-keeping and overtime-pay obligations for Assistant Managers in the New York area. The judgment's relief is extended beyond the initial two districts or five restaurants due to evidence of systemic issues emanating from the regional level. The court also addressed the Secretary's claim regarding Assistant Managers earning above the short-form test exemption. Prejudgment interest was awarded at the adjusted prime rate, rejecting the defendant's good faith argument due to willful violations. The defendant's application for a stay of judgment pending appeal was granted, except for record-keeping obligations, conditional on filing bonds and prosecuting the appeal.

Overtime PayFair Labor Standards ActRule 52(b) MotionPrejudgment InterestWillful ViolationsRecord-KeepingEquitable PowersFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAssistant ManagersStay of Judgment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 657034/2017
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2018

NSB Advisors, LLC v. C.L. King & Assoc., Inc.

Petitioner NSB Advisors, LLC sought to confirm a FINRA arbitration award against Respondent C.L. King & Associates, Inc., stemming from financial losses in 2011-2012. CL King cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Charles E. Ramos, reviewed the case under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), noting the extremely limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award. The court found CL King's arguments to be speculative and insufficient, and its failure to provide a complete arbitration record detrimental to its claim. Consequently, the court granted NSB's motion to confirm the award and denied CL King's cross-motion to vacate.

Arbitration AwardFINRAFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawVacaturConfirmationBreach of ContractFinancial LossesInvestment AdvisorBroker-Dealer
References
14
Case No. ADJ7930654
Regular
Oct 23, 2013

MAURICIO ROQUE GUERRERO vs. STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION CORPORATION, dba BURGER KING, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ7930654, involves applicant Mauricio Roque Guerrero and defendants Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Corporation (Burger King) and New Hampshire Insurance Company. The Board has denied Guerrero's Petition for Reconsideration. This denial is based on the Board's review of the record and adoption of the findings in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportdenial of reconsiderationStrategic Restaurants Acquisition CorporationBurger KingNew Hampshire Insurance CompanyBroadspireCrawford CompanyADJ7930654
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 845 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