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

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Case No. 02 Civ. 8428(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Professional Sound Services, Inc. v. Guzzi

Plaintiff Professional Sound Services, Inc. (PSS) sued Gotham Sound and Communications, Inc., Roland J. Guzzi, and Peter Schneider, alleging product disparagement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, along with several state law claims. PSS contended that Guzzi made disparaging statements about PSS to its customers and that Gotham's use of the letter "S" in its inventory codes constituted trademark infringement of PSS's purported "S" mark. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims. The court found that PSS failed to demonstrate widespread dissemination for its disparagement claim and that its "S" mark lacked inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning necessary for trademark protection. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Lanham ActProduct DisparagementFalse Designation of OriginTrademark InfringementSummary JudgmentCommercial SpeechDistinctivenessSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid Factors
References
46
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06128 [221 AD3d 981]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Hossain v. Condominium Bd. of Grand Professional Bldg.

The plaintiff, Mohammed Iqbal Hossain, initiated legal action to seek damages for personal injuries reportedly sustained while he was engaged in pointing work on a building facade, alleging his rope scaffold malfunctioned and struck the building. The lawsuit claimed violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), (2), and 241 (6) against the Condominium Board of Grand Professional Building and G Buddy, Inc. The Supreme Court had previously granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and (2) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss claims against G Buddy, Inc. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment against G Buddy, Inc. for all specified Labor Law sections, and also denying it against the Condominium Board for Labor Law § 240 (2). However, the court affirmed the summary judgment granted for Labor Law § 240 (1) against the Condominium Board.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 240(2)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityAgency
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 153 v. Miller

Local 153 of the Office and Professional Employees International Union sought judicial review of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to dismiss its petition for certification and the General Counsel's refusal to act on an unfair labor practice charge. The Board had declined jurisdiction over the employer, AGIP, USA, Inc., due to its ownership by the Italian government. The District Court, presided over by Judge Lasker, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Board's representation orders or compel the General Counsel, citing precedents establishing the finality of such administrative decisions. Consequently, the court denied the Union's motion for summary judgment and granted the motions of the Board and the intervening employer, dismissing the complaint.

Judicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActCertification PetitionUnfair Labor PracticeSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative LawIntervenorSummary JudgmentGovernment Owned Entity
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07672 [132 AD3d 887]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2015

Matter of Village of Garden City v. Local 1588, Professional Firefighters Assn.

The Village of Garden City appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the Professional Firefighters Association's motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the Village decided to lay off six bargaining unit members and assign their work to nonbargaining unit volunteers, leading the Association to file a grievance and request arbitration. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, found that the parties' collective bargaining agreement permitted arbitration of these issues and that it was not against public policy. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there was no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance. The Court also noted that previous decisions had implicitly acknowledged the arbitrability of assigning bargaining unit work to volunteers, and the grievances were reasonably related to the CBA.

Arbitration DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Sector EmploymentLayoff GrievanceAssignment of WorkAppellate DivisionNassau CountyStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationManagement Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Village of Garden City v. Professional Firefighters Assn. of Nassau County, Local 1588

This case involves an appeal concerning a dispute over staffing recall procedures at multiple-alarm fires between the Village of Garden City (petitioner) and the Professional Firefighters Association of Nassau County, Local 1588 (respondent). The Association filed a grievance seeking arbitration after the Village failed to adhere to these procedures, which were outlined in agreements attached to their collective bargaining agreement. The Village petitioned to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the agreements were not arbitrable, but the Supreme Court denied their petition and compelled arbitration. Upon reargument, the court upheld its initial decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievancePublic PolicyRecall ProceduresFirefightersStaffing DisputeMunicipal EmploymentJudicial ReviewLabor Relations
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,356 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