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. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gayal Realty Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 25

The case involves plaintiffs Dans, a general contractor, and G-ayal, a property owner, who sought an injunction against defendant Local #25 I. B. E. W. to halt picketing at a construction site. The picketing, which commenced on August 5, 1963, alleged that electricians were not working under the union's standard wages and conditions, resulting in a significant work stoppage. The defendant moved for dismissal, citing deficiencies in the complaint, non-compliance with the Civil Practice Act, and federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that the dispute was "arguably subject" to the NLRB's jurisdiction, thereby pre-empting state judicial action, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' arguments that their businesses did not impact interstate commerce. Ultimately, the plaintiffs were granted permission to withdraw their motion and discontinue the action without prejudice, and the previously issued stay on picketing was vacated.

InjunctionLabor DisputeFederal PreemptionNLRB JurisdictionPicketingCivil Practice ActUnion ActivityInterstate CommerceWithdrawal of MotionMootness
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc.

This case concerns a wage-and-hour action filed by Vincent E. Boice against M+W U.S., Inc., Total Facility Solutions, Inc., and M+W Zander N.Y. Architects, P.C. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a collective action and compel discovery. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended denying conditional certification without prejudice but granting limited pre-certification discovery for employee contact information. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby accepted and adopted this Report-Recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to strike the declaration and the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification while granting in part the motion to compel discovery. The court also denied other relief sought by the plaintiff and reopened the discovery period for 90 days.

FLSAWage-and-Hour ActionCollective ActionConditional CertificationDiscovery MotionOvertime CompensationJudicial ReviewEmployment LawClass Action ProcedureMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
60
Case No. 604, 605, 674, 676, 694
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bruister & Associates

This case involves claims by over 1,700 cable technicians against DirecTV, Bruister and Associates, Inc., and Herbert C. Bruister for uncompensated off-the-clock work and other FLSA violations. The technicians allege a "culture of off-the-clock work" where they were expected to perform tasks like pre-calling customers, inventorying tools, pre-building dishes, and cleaning vehicles without pay, both before and after their recorded work hours. They also claim improper calculation of overtime rates and minimum wage violations for piece-rate workers. Defendants filed motions to decertify the collective action and to dismiss claims against DirecTV and Mr. Bruister, arguing that the technicians were not similarly situated and that individualized inquiries into damages would be too complex. The Court denied these motions, finding that common issues of liability predominated and that a collective action was appropriate given the relaxed burden of proof for damages in FLSA cases where employer records are inadequate. The Court also emphasized the importance of collective actions for plaintiffs with small individual monetary harms.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActWage and HourOvertimeUnpaid WagesOff-the-Clock WorkCollective ActionClass ActionDecertificationPiece-rate Pay
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1996

Tunstall v. Sol Seifer & Co.

A judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 7, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing an age discrimination complaint, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found the action was properly dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of proof that younger workers were hired for a position she was qualified for after her discharge. The plaintiff's request for further discovery was rejected because she had failed to compel compliance with discovery requests during the nearly 10 years the action had been pending, despite filing a note of issue and statement of readiness.

age discriminationsummary judgmentdiscoverydismissalemployment lawappellate reviewprocedural issueslack of proofNew YorkSupreme Court
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06517 [153 AD3d 1308]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2017

Antonyshyn v. Tishman Construction Corp.

In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff Yuriy Antonyshyn was injured in a scaffold accident. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Tishman Construction Corporation, 50 Varick, LLC, Foundations Group, Inc., and Nuway Interior Corp. The Supreme Court granted the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the summary judgment motion was premature due to incomplete discovery. The court reasoned that further discovery might reveal facts suggesting the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, thus denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with leave to renew after discovery.

Scaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentPremature MotionDiscoveryPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
12
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1997

Sidor v. Zuhoski

This case involves appeals from an order concerning two related actions: one for personal injuries (Action No. 1) and another for wrongful death (Action No. 2). Joseph and Gregory Zuhoski appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1. Separately, Colin Van Tuyl, as Executor of the Estate of Janet A. Van Tuyl, and Brianna and Colin Van Tuyl, individually, appealed both the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion and the granting of Martin Sidor & Sons, Inc.'s motion to amend its answer in Action No. 2. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, noting the trial court's sound discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly when the failure to deny allegations was an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, the court found an issue of fact regarding Gregory Zuhoski's employment status at the time of the accident, which justified the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppealPleading AmendmentDiscretion of Trial CourtWorkers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentAppellate DivisionSuffolk County Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kramer v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order issued by the Supreme Court, Erie County, presided over by Justice Kevin M. Dillon. The original order denied the plaintiff's motion for discovery within the context of a wrongful death action. Upon review by the appellate panel, consisting of Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Pine, and Hayes, JJ., the order was unanimously affirmed without costs. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision for the reasons previously stated in the Supreme Court's original determination.

Discovery MotionWrongful Death ActionAppellate CourtOrder AffirmedCivil ProcedureErie County Supreme CourtJudicial Review
References
0
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

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 12,791 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