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
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 536000
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Matter of Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its H-2A agricultural workers from 2014 to 2016. The contributions included remuneration for housing and utilities provided to these workers. Elhannon argued for the retroactive application of a 2019 amendment to Labor Law § 564, which excluded H-2A workers from the definition of "employment," but the court found no clear legislative intent for retroactivity. The company also challenged the Board's authority to assess contributions for workers ineligible for benefits and disputed the valuation of housing and utility remuneration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that an employer's obligation to pay contributions is independent of employee eligibility for benefits and upholding the Commissioner's method for calculating remuneration.

Unemployment InsuranceH-2A WorkersAgricultural LaborRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationLabor LawPayroll TaxEmployer ContributionsRemuneration ValuationHousing Benefits
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gjertsen v. Mawson & Mawson, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a dockworker at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., had paid workers' compensation. The appellants, Ingram & Greene, Inc. (a subcontractor) and H. Sand & Co., Inc. (the general contractor), sought indemnification from the employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., for the plaintiff's injuries. The initial order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, had dismissed their cross-claims and denied H. Sand & Co., Inc.'s motion to amend its answer. The appellate court reversed this order, finding that federal maritime law allows for indemnification based on either an express agreement or an implied warranty of workmanlike performance, and that Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) impose liabilities equivalent to the doctrine of unseaworthiness.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationCross-claimsLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActFederal Maritime LawState Court JurisdictionImplied Warranty of Workmanlike PerformanceLabor Law ViolationsStrict LiabilityThird-Party Beneficiary
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07701 [176 AD3d 589]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Matter of Nexia Health Tech., Inc. v. Miratech, Inc.

Petitioner Nexia Health Technologies, Inc. commenced a special proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, while respondent Miratech, Inc. cross-moved to confirm it. The dispute arose from a Master Services Agreement (MSA) where Miratech performed software upgrade work for Nexia, but Nexia failed to pay for Phases 2 and 3. An arbitrator awarded Miratech payment, finding unjust enrichment for Phase 3. The Supreme Court denied Nexia's petition and granted Miratech's cross-motion to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that the arbitrator gave a colorable justification for interpreting the limitation of liability clause as not applicable when invoices for Phase 2 were unpaid, and that such an interpretation, even if erroneous, does not constitute manifest disregard of the law or an excess of authority.

ArbitrationArbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationManifest Disregard of LawFederal Arbitration ActLimitation of Liability ClauseContract InterpretationUnjust EnrichmentAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DAR & Associates, Inc. v. Uniforce Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of DAR & Associates, Inc., its principals, and D.A.R. Temps, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against Uniforee Services, Inc. The core of the action sought a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants and a liquidated damages provision in their contracts were unenforceable under New York law, alongside a breach of contract claim. In addressing cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court found Uniforee possessed legitimate business interests warranting the protection of the restrictive covenants, deeming them reasonable in duration and geographic scope. Furthermore, the court upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, concluding that actual damages were difficult to ascertain at the time of contract and the agreed-upon sum was reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, effectively validating the contractual provisions at issue.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementLicensing AgreementUnfair Competition
References
60
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
Case No. Docket # 7
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. v. Union City Contractors, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. against Union City Contractors, Inc. for unpaid debris removal services, and a Miller Act claim against Union City's sureties, Nova Casualty Company and Nova American Groups, Inc. After a bench trial in January 2008, Union City filed for bankruptcy, leading to an automatic stay on claims against them. The court, however, proceeded with Empire's Miller Act claim against Nova. The primary dispute concerned the quantity of debris removed, with Empire claiming 11,470 cubic yards. The court found Empire's evidence credible and rejected Nova's fraud defense, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Empire against Nova for $84,653.63, plus prejudgment interest.

Miller Act claimPayment bondBreach of contractSurety liabilityFederal public works projectDebris removalCubic yardage disputePrejudgment interestAttorney's fees deniedFraud affirmative defense
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 10,810 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