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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03670 [239 AD3d 1157]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Lo (Go N.Y. Tours Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Yero Lo, a street ticket seller for Go New York Tours Inc. (TopView Sightseeing), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after TopView's closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Labor initially determined TopView was the employer and liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this, finding Lo and others were independent contractors. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ, concluding that ticket sellers were employees, making TopView liable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence of TopView's control over the ticket sellers, including training, providing equipment, setting parameters for sales, and restricting other employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorStreet Ticket SellerSightseeing Tour BusControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chung v. Express Tours, Inc.

The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment and a change of venue. The Appellate Court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion, dismissing the causes of action by plaintiffs Jiang Yi Wang and Sandy Liu, and severing the action for the remaining plaintiffs. The Court found that Wang's and Liu's claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Wang's employment as a tour guide for defendant Express Tours, Inc., and whether Express had obtained Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage for him. Consequently, the venue for the remaining plaintiffs was transferred from Kings County to Richmond County.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentVenue ChangeTour GuideEmployer LiabilityEvidentiary ValueAppellate ReviewKings CountyRichmond County
References
3
Case No. ADJ1199695 (SRO 0104082) MF
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

DARLENE CONKLIN vs. RUNAWAY TOURS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior decision and returned the case for a new determination of permanent disability. While the WCAB agreed the applicant's industrial injury caused 100% permanent disability, they found the prior apportionment calculation was incorrect. The WCAB directed the trial judge to re-calculate the permanent disability using the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule and the Multiple Disabilities Table to properly address apportionment. The applicant will be reimbursed for the costs of her vocational expert.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDARLENE CONKLINRUNAWAY TOURSSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTVOCATIONAL EXPERTADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEAGREED MEDICAL EXAMINER
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2013

O'Neill v. Mermaid Touring Inc.

Plaintiff Jennifer O’Neill, a former personal assistant to Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) and Mermaid Touring, Inc., sued for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York’s Labor Law. O'Neill alleged she worked "24/7" on-call for a fixed salary without overtime pay. Defendants sought summary judgment on whether O'Neill was entitled to overtime for work performed outside New York, if her "on-call" time was compensable, and the method for calculating any due overtime. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the New York Labor Law claim for out-of-state work, but denied it regarding the compensability of "on-call" time and the method of overtime calculation due to unresolved factual disputes. Additionally, the Third Cause of Action was dismissed by consent.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawPersonal AssistantLady GagaOn-call TimeSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimEmployee Misclassification
References
39
Case No. 85 Civ. 4724 (RO)
Regular Panel Decision

New York Bus Tours, Inc. v. Kheel

This District Court opinion addresses a long-standing labor dispute concerning bus drivers' entitlement to back pay following a 1979 wild-cat strike. The central issue involved clarifying an ambiguous arbitration award by Theodore W. Kheel, which initially awarded compensation but stayed enforcement pending the employer's recovery from the Board of Education. After numerous appeals and remands, arbitrator Eric J. Schmertz, with Kheel's testimony, definitively clarified that the original award required unconditional payment to the employees, regardless of the employer's success against the Board. The District Court upheld Schmertz's clarification, granting the Transport Workers Union's motion to confirm the award and denying New York Bus Tours, Inc.'s motion to vacate it. The decision emphasized the necessity of prompt payment to the employees who had awaited compensation for over a decade.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeWild-cat StrikeBack PayContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewArbitrator's IntentAppellate ReviewFederal Court JurisdictionSouthern District of New York
References
8
Case No. ADJ7037256
Regular
Jul 27, 2010

DENNY PEREZ vs. MARISELA MILLAN dba CHULA VISTA TOURS, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant not to be an employee of Chula Vista Tours. This determination was based on the judge's assessment of the applicant's testimony as not credible, citing evidence of threats and suspicious timing of treatment and claim filing relative to a restraining order. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility findings, as is customary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationCredibility DeterminationEmployee StatusChula Vista ToursEndurance Insurance CompanyDriver MechanicDWC-1 Claim FormRestraining Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reiken v. Nationwide Leisure Corp.

This case involves a purported class action brought by OTC charter tour passengers against a tour operator, an airline, hotel companies, and a surety. The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentations related to London tours, seeking damages and rescission. The surety, Fidelity and Deposit Company, Inc., removed the action from New York Supreme Court to federal court, arguing that claims on a bond issued under federal law fall within federal jurisdiction. However, co-defendants Nationwide and Nadel moved to remand. The District Court granted the motion to remand, citing the longstanding rule that all defendants must join a removal petition, which was not met in this case.

Class ActionFederal JurisdictionRemovalRemand MotionSurety BondMisrepresentationBreach of ContractFraudTour OperatorAirline
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ripley v. Mulroy

Plaintiff Thomas Ripley sued Thomas J. Mulroy and Rockville Travel, Inc. for fraud concerning promissory notes issued by Faith Tours, Inc., which subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, invoking the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362). The court denied the motion, clarifying that the automatic stay applies only to the debtor (Faith Tours) and not to co-defendants. The court also raised concerns about subject matter jurisdiction over Rockville Travel, Inc., due to the apparent lack of a federal claim against it, and ordered further briefing on the issue.

Bankruptcy StayFraudPromissory NotesSecurities ActRICOPendent JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal QuestionDebtor and Creditor LawCorporate Fraud
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union Local 100

A motion to dispense with printing was granted, allowing the appeal to be heard upon the original record and typewritten or mimeographed appellants' points. Conditions included serving one copy of the appellants' points upon the attorney for respondents and filing 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies with the court by June 15, 1962, with notice of argument for June 21, 1962. Respondents' points were to be served and filed by June 20, 1962. The decision was concurred by Justices Breitel, Valente, McNally, Eager, and Steuer.

Motion practiceAppealProcedural orderPrinting requirementCourt procedureAppellate DivisionRecord on appealFiling deadlinesOral argumentSubmission
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 23 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