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. Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Koren v. Zazo

David Koren, plaintiff in Action No. 2, sued Vivaldi, Inc. following a motor vehicle accident, alleging John Zazo, the driver, was a Vivaldi employee acting within the scope of his employment. Vivaldi moved for summary judgment, asserting Zazo was an independent contractor. Vivaldi provided evidence of Zazo's compensation by commission, self-sourced clients, lack of expenses or benefits, and 1099 tax form issuance, consistent with independent contractor status. The court found this evidence sufficient to establish Zazo as an independent contractor, thereby absolving Vivaldi of liability for his negligent acts. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment to Vivaldi and third-party defendant Ford Motor Credit Company was reversed, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and third-party complaint in Action No. 2.

Independent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentVicarious LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York Law1099 Tax Form
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Pavarini Construction

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained injuries when a form wall fell on his hand during the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. This court reversed that decision, holding that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.2 (a), which mandates proper bracing for forms, applies to forms even during their construction phase, not just when they are completed. The court found that the back form wall was not properly braced, leading to the plaintiff's injury, and distinguished the defendants' cited precedents.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 23-2.2(a)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyConcrete FormworkBracing RequirementsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mueller v. PSEG Power New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul Mueller sustained injuries at a construction site owned by the defendant while engaged in disassembling steel slab forms with a crane. The forms, weighing approximately 1,035 pounds, were accidentally snagged by the crane cable after being placed on the ground and unhooked by workers, subsequently falling onto Mueller's leg. Mueller and his wife initiated an action asserting common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claims, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The appellate court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the incident did not involve a hoisting activity, and Labor Law § 241 (6) did not apply because the relevant regulation, 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), specifically pertains to concrete forms during active concrete work rather than during storage.

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevation HazardHoisting AccidentConcrete FormsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1994

Savino v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a limousine driver, who was also a shareholder, and UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. The Board awarded workers' compensation benefits for injuries the claimant sustained while on duty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue supported by substantial evidence, consistent with prior case law. The court also rejected the respondent's stare decisis argument, clarifying that administrative determinations under one statute are not binding under another.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardLimousine driverSubstantial evidenceStare decisisUnemployment Insurance LawAppellate reviewIndependent contractor distinctionOn-duty injuryShareholder status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Qavi v. Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed April 24, 1997, which determined an employer-employee relationship existed between a claimant, a limousine driver, and Utog 2-Way Radio, Inc., a dispatched car service. The claimant was injured in an automobile collision and sought benefits. The Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship, crucial for benefit eligibility, was upheld by the appellate court due to substantial evidence of control exerted by Utog over the claimant. This determination aligned with previous similar cases involving Utog and other limousine drivers. The court rejected Utog’s arguments regarding a lease agreement and insufficient notice of claim, affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipLimousine DriverAutomobile CollisionSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual IssueBoard DeterminationNotice of Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1971

Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2

The Secretary of Labor brought an action to set aside the January 9, 1970 election of officers for Liquor Salesmen’s Union, Local No. 2, and to order a new supervised election. The Secretary alleged violations of 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), specifically that the Union used its financed publication, "The Journal," to promote incumbent candidates and that an employer used company funds to influence the election. The court found that the Union's use of "The Journal" did violate § 481(g) and that this likely affected the election outcome, given the narrow margins of victory for incumbents. However, the court found no direct employer contribution to promote candidates. The court also rejected the defendant's First Amendment and vagueness challenges to § 481(g). Consequently, the court voided the election and ordered a new election under the Secretary's supervision.

Union Election LawLMRDA Section 481(g)Union Funds MisuseCampaign LiteratureEmployer Election InterferenceExhaustion of Union RemediesFirst Amendment RightsLabor Organization GovernanceElection IrregularitiesFederal District Court
References
16
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06668
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy gang box into a truck. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this decision, denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and reinstating it. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against specific defendants (Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC, Delancey Street Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC), while otherwise affirming the lower court's order. The court also noted a contradiction in pleadings regarding ownership by one of the defendants, Delancey Street Associates, LLC.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionGang Box InjuryConstruction AccidentPleading ContradictionOwner LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02373 [170 AD3d 1227]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2019

Simon v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an action for personal injuries and wrongful death. The plaintiff, Charles Simon, individually and as administrator of Julie Simon's estate, sued Granite Building 2, LLC, Kulka Contracting, LLC, and FXR Construction, Inc., after Julie Simon died and Charles Simon was injured in a construction site accident. The incident occurred when their vehicle slid on ice in an unfinished parking garage, causing it to fall into an excavation pit. A jury found Granite and Kulka negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that issues regarding the 'storm in progress' doctrine and the construction manager's liability were properly submitted to the jury. The court also upheld the reduced damages awards as not materially deviating from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathConstruction Site AccidentNegligenceLabor LawPremises LiabilityJury VerdictDamagesAppellate ReviewCPLR 4404
References
20
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,996 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