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

Lee v. Glessing

Plaintiff William Lee initiated a lawsuit against Charles Glessing and Palantine Nursing Home, alleging gender and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADA, and New York State Human Rights Law, along with claims of retaliation. Lee, a physical therapist, contended he endured sexual harassment from female co-workers and was wrongfully terminated due to his gender, a mental disability, and in response to his complaints. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting non-discriminatory termination reasons, arguing Lee was an independent contractor, and disputing the existence of a hostile work environment. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying unresolved factual disputes regarding the termination's true cause, Lee's employment status, and the claims of a hostile work environment and employer liability. Additionally, plaintiff's ADA claims were dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Human Rights Law
References
42
Case No. Dkt.# 9
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Barnhart

Johnny Lee, acting pro se, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision that he was not disabled and thus ineligible for SSDI or SSI benefits. After an initial denial, a reversal and remand by the court, and a second hearing before ALJ John Costello which again denied benefits, Lee filed this action. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence in the administrative record. The court concluded that Lee's subjective complaints of chronic back and knee pain were not supported by objective medical evidence from multiple physicians, and the ALJ's credibility findings were reasonable.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeSSDIChronic Back PainKnee PainMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Lee v. Arnan Development Corp.

Plaintiff Anthony Lee, a cement truck operator, suffered knee injuries after falling due to soft ground and concrete debris while cleaning his truck at a facility operated by defendant Oneonta. Lee and his wife filed a negligence action against Oneonta. Oneonta sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of Lee's employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy, and that it had no notice of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that Oneonta failed to demonstrate an alter ego relationship and did not prove it maintained a reasonably safe premises.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineNegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCorporate SeparatenessPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee Myles Associates Corp. v. Abrams

The petitioners, Lee Myles Associates Corporation and Charles George, filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate a determination by the Attorney-General of the State of New York dated June 10, 1982. The Attorney-General had refused to register Lee Myles's franchise offering prospectus due to Charles George's prior felony conviction. Petitioners contended this rejection was arbitrary and violated their due process rights. The court found that the petitioners were denied procedural due process, specifically the opportunity for a full hearing, to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses. Consequently, the court granted the petition to the extent of vacating the Attorney-General's determination and ordered a new de novo hearing on the franchise application, while denying the request for interim relief.

Procedural Due ProcessFranchise Sales ActGeneral Business LawFelony ConvictionAdministrative HearingArticle 78 PetitionDe Novo HearingFranchise RegistrationDue Process RightsProperty Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2004

Lee v. Lewiston Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a personal injury action involving Hugh Lee, who sustained injuries from coal tar pitch during roof replacement. The Supreme Court, Cayuga County, initially granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, based on alleged violations of regulations concerning protective apparel and washing facilities for corrosive substances, citing unresolved factual issues regarding their applicability. However, the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was affirmed, as defendants demonstrated no supervision over the plaintiff's work. Furthermore, the court found summary judgment on the third-party complaint against Target Group of Central New York, Inc. to be inappropriate due to an issue of fact regarding a breach of contract related to insurance procurement.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProtective ApparelWashing FacilitiesCorrosive SubstancesCoal Tar PitchThird-Party ActionInsurance Breach
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lee

The case involves a motion to suppress a confession made by 17-year-old Steven Lee, who was arrested for multiple robberies. Prior to his interrogation, Lee's parents explicitly informed detectives they would secure a lawyer for him. Despite this, and after initial Miranda warnings, detectives proceeded with questioning Lee at the precinct while he was handcuffed. The court found that the parents' unequivocal statement constituted an effective invocation of Lee's right to counsel, requiring the police to either reiterate his rights in light of the parents' intent or wait a reasonable time for a lawyer. The court also expressed reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness and knowing waiver of Lee's Miranda rights, particularly given his age, lack of prior arrests, handcuffing, and threats made by detectives. Consequently, the motion to suppress Lee's confession for both indictments was granted.

Confession suppressionMiranda rightsParental invocation of counselJuvenile rightsCustodial interrogationVoluntariness of confessionPolice threatsRight to counsel waiver17-year-old defendantIntervening events
References
12
Case No. 535533
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Marvin Andino

Marvin Andino appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his claim for benefits due to untimely notice of injury. Andino allegedly suffered work-related injuries on July 17, 2019, but failed to provide written notice to his employer, Structural Preservation System, until March 18, 2021, significantly past the 30-day statutory period. Despite a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially establishing the claim, the Board reversed, concluding that Andino did not provide timely notice as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Board also found that Andino's reasons for the delay, including fear of job loss and underestimation of injury severity, were insufficient given his ongoing pain and subsequent surgery. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying to excuse the untimely notice.

Untimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer NotificationWork-Related InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearSurgeryBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewSection 18
References
9
Case No. CV-24-0287
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Lee Trickey

Claimant Lee Trickey was injured on a construction site while installing roof trusses for Black River Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. He filed a personal injury action, while Black River's workers' compensation carrier sought to establish a workers' compensation claim, arguing Trickey was an employee. Trickey maintained he was an independent contractor. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, citing the Construction Industry Fair Play Act (Labor Law § 861-c), found an employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the Board did not provide sufficient findings of fact regarding its assessment of the three-part ABC test to determine if Trickey was an independent contractor and whether the presumption of employment was rebutted, despite appearing to satisfy the last two prongs of the test. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to properly consider the ABC test.

Employer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawWorkers' Compensation BoardABC TestSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewStatutory Presumption
References
3
Case No. 04 Civ. 8987(LBS)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2005

Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP.

Plaintiff Doo Nam Yang sued ACBL Corp., Gold Lee Jewelry Co., and Han Sung Lee for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, specifically regarding unpaid overtime and spread of hours wages. Yang also brought a common law claim for conversion, alleging deductions from his wages were not remitted for taxes or returned to him. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Sand presiding, conducted a bench trial and found the defendants liable. The court awarded Yang a total of $70,960.57 in damages, including liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, for which all defendants were held jointly and severally liable.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ViolationsOvertime PaySpread of Hours PayConversion TortWillful ViolationLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestEmployer Liability
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 199 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