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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05238 [173 AD3d 1571]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Matter of Kriplin (Community Newspaper Group LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Jonathan Kriplin, a newspaper carrier for Community Newspaper Group LLC (now Community First Holdings, Inc. - CFHI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing deliveries. The Department of Labor and an Administrative Law Judge determined that Kriplin and other carriers were employees, making CFHI liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld these findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, citing substantial evidence of an employment relationship, consistent with prior cases involving CFHI and similar workers. The court dismissed CFHI's arguments regarding independent contractor status and First Amendment rights.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorNewspaper CarriersAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawFirst Amendment Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paolucci v. Capital Newspapers

This case involves consolidated appeals from four decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, the Board ruled that the claimants, adult newspaper carriers for Capital Newspapers, were independent contractors and thus ineligible for workers' compensation benefits. This determination was appealed, and in the case of Mary A. Paolucci, the matter was remitted for reconsideration due to the Board's inconsistent decisions in similar prior cases. On remittal, the Board reversed its original findings and determined that all claimants were employees within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Law. The employer, Capital Newspapers, subsequently appealed these new decisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's latest decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the employer exercised a sufficient degree of control over the claimants' delivery methods and timing to establish an employer-employee relationship.

Worker classificationEmployee statusIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationJudicial reviewAdministrative lawEmployer controlNewspaper deliveryAppellate courtRemittal order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peck v. Democrat and Chronicle/Gannett Newspapers

The plaintiff, a newspaper carrier, sued the defendant newspaper and a manager for hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII and state common law claims. The defendant newspaper moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus Title VII did not apply. The Court applied the common law agency test, analyzing factors like control over work, source of tools, ability to hire assistance, and tax treatment. Ultimately, the Court found the plaintiff was an independent contractor, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationCommon Law Agency TestSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights Act of 1964
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pittman v. Poughkeepsie Journal

A newspaper carrier for Poughkeepsie Journal sustained injuries in an automobile accident and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. The newspaper and its insurance carrier disputed the claim, contending that the claimant was an independent contractor rather than an employee. However, the Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employer-employee relationship existed due to the newspaper's significant control over the claimant's duties. This control was evidenced by contractual stipulations such as maintaining subscriber list confidentiality, promptly addressing complaints, promoting circulation, adhering to delivery deadlines, and requiring advance notice for substitutes. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the newspaper exercised more than incidental control over the carrier.

employer-employee relationshipindependent contractorworkers' compensationnewspaper carrierdirection and controlcontractual obligationsappellate reviewWorkers' Compensation Board determinationscope of employment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paolucci v. Capital Newspapers, a Division of the Hearst Corp.

Claimant, an adult newspaper carrier for Capital Newspapers, sought workers’ compensation benefits after an injury. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim, deeming her an independent contractor based on factors like profiting from resale and freedom in delivery methods. However, the Appellate Division noted that these factors mirrored a prior case, Matter of Pittman v Poughkeepsie Journal, where an employer/employee relationship was found. The Court ruled that the Board failed to either follow its own precedent or provide an explanation for its inconsistent decisions, as required by Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts]. Citing additional instances of the Board’s unexplained departures from precedent, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewPrecedentStare DecisisBoard DecisionRemittalNewspaper CarrierEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1985

Landi v. Carrier Corp.

The claimant, a 61-year-old brake press operator, suffered an acute back strain and aggravation of degenerative disc disease, leading to total disability for a period in 1982. He subsequently retired in February 1983, asserting his inability to perform even a light-duty inspector's job offered by his employer due to his ongoing partial disability. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's retirement was directly attributable to his continuing permanent partial disability, a finding supported by his doctor's reports and his own testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's decision, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Back StrainDegenerative Disc DiseaseTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedist
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04286
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2024

Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.

This case concerns a defamation lawsuit filed by Karl Reeves and his associated companies against Associated Newspapers Ltd. and reporter Anneta Konstantinides. The lawsuit stemmed from an online article detailing Reeves' contentious divorce, child custody battle, and prior criminal charges. Defendants argued the claims constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and were protected under fair report privilege. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint but denied attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Appellate Division clarified the "substantial basis in law" standard for anti-SLAPP suits, ruling it is a higher bar than merely avoiding frivolousness. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims lacked this substantial basis, thus entitling defendants to mandatory attorneys' fees. The case was modified to grant defendants' motion under CPLR 3211(g) and remanded for calculation of fees.

SLAPP suitAnti-SLAPP lawDefamationCivil Rights LawCPLR 3211(g)Attorneys' feesPublic interestSubstantial basisFair report privilegeTortious interference
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nebenhaus v. Lydmark Corp.

The claimant, a butcher and president of Lydmark Corporation, allegedly suffered heart attacks and failed to file a timely notice of claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, citing prompt medical attention and no prejudice to the carrier. However, the employer and its carrier appealed. The court found that the carrier did not receive notice within the statutory 30 days, and the Board's finding of no prejudice was unsupported. The claimant had previously indicated no intent to file a compensation claim on disability forms, and the employer corporation disbanded, hindering the carrier's investigation. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision, with costs to the carrier against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and remitted the matter for further proceedings on the issue of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ClaimTimely NoticePrejudice to CarrierHeart AttackEmployer's Report of InjuryEmployee's Claim FormDisability BenefitsCorporate OfficerAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. Arrow Carriers Corp.

This case involves a claimant who received workers' compensation benefits following a 1981 job-related motor vehicle accident. The employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier asserted a lien against the claimant's $100,000 third-party settlement and initially opposed its approval. The Supreme Court approved the settlement, distributing $30,000 to the carrier for its lien and $35,633 to the claimant. Subsequently, through a stipulation, the parties agreed to modify the order, with the carrier compromising its lien for $30,000 while explicitly reserving its right to offset future compensation obligations using the claimant's net recovery. Despite a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding the offset right preserved, the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed this determination, prompting the current appeal. The court ultimately reversed the Board's decision, affirming the carrier's right to offset future compensation benefits, emphasizing that the carrier's explicit reservation during the settlement stipulation was valid under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (4) and aligned with the legislative intent to prevent double recoveries.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementLienOffset RightsStatutory InterpretationJudicial ApprovalWorkers’ Compensation Law § 29Double RecoveryStipulation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,824 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