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. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09409 [134 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

North Coast Outfitters, Ltd. v. Darling

North Coast Outfitters, Ltd. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to Charles W. Darling III, Charlies Horse, Inc., and Rivers End, LLC. North Coast sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty and a declaration that Darling, a majority shareholder, was no longer a shareholder due to his failure to contribute to a 2003 "capital call." The Supreme Court had dismissed North Coast's claim as time-barred and declared Darling remained a shareholder. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel and whether Darling failed to meet the capital call requirements of the shareholders' agreement. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Shareholder disputeBreach of fiduciary dutyCapital callCorporate governanceSummary judgmentStatute of limitations defenseEquitable estoppelAppellate reversalShareholder agreementCorporate shares
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC

The plaintiff was injured while employed by D.S. Imports on premises leased by Delmar Sales, Inc. and purchased by Pacific Classen Realty, LLC the day after the accident. The appellate court found that the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Pacific Classen Realty, LLC should have been granted because PCR did not own the premises at the time of the accident. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales, Inc., ruling that it failed to prove the plaintiff was a special employee or that it was an alter ego of D.S. Imports. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as it failed to establish it was not an owner or agent.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawPremises LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionReal Estate OwnershipLessor LiabilityLessee Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08399 [133 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Podobedov v. East Coast Construction Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Aleksey Podobedov, was injured on a construction site when struck by falling concrete while working for subcontractor IBK Enterprises, Inc. He sued the general contractor, East Coast Construction Group, Inc., and owner, Clinton West Partners, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants filed a third-party complaint against IBK for contractual indemnification. All parties moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that none of the parties had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding the Labor Law claims or the issue of contractual indemnification, thus requiring a jury determination.

Construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)falling objectsummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationAppellate Divisionprima facietriable issue of factsubcontractor liability
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misirlakis v. East Coast Entertainment Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, George Misirlakis, was injured while attempting to re-enter a building via a fire escape from a dumpster after forgetting his keys, resulting in a fall when a rung collapsed. He and his wife, Vasilia Misirlakis, initiated a lawsuit against East Coast Entertainment Properties, Inc. (building owner) and Mast Enterprises, Inc. (lessee), asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's "unnecessary and unforeseeable act of climbing onto the dumpster and ascending the fire escape" constituted the sole and superseding proximate cause of his injuries, thereby absolving the defendants of liability.

Fire Escape AccidentDemolition Work InjuryLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 240Labor Law Section 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentProximate CauseSuperseding CauseUnforeseeable Act
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 733 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