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

AMR Services Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiff AMR Services Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Local 851 and Airline Division, alleging illegal picketing at J.F.K. International Airport. AMR contended the picketing violated the Railway Labor Act by aiming for representational and organizational purposes among AMR's employees. The defendant unions argued their actions were legitimate, primarily protesting Korean Air Lines' contract termination with Triangle Aviation Services and publicizing AMR's alleged substandard wages, not to organize AMR employees. The court found no objective evidence of a present purpose by the unions to seek recognition of AMR employees, distinguishing the case from precedents involving explicit organizational efforts. Consequently, the court concluded that no "dispute" over representation existed under the Railway Labor Act, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the injunction, leading to its denial.

Labour disputeRailway Labor ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPicketingUnion representationArea standardsPreliminary injunctionCollective bargainingFederal labor law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2009

Nassau Health Care Corp. v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

The Nassau Health Care Corporation appealed a Supreme Court judgment that denied its petition to modify an arbitration award and granted a petition by Saderia Burke and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., to confirm a suspension. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority by imposing a suspension despite a prior consent award mandating termination for disciplinary infractions. Consequently, the Corporation's petition to modify the arbitration award was granted, the suspension penalty was vacated, and the implied penalty of termination was reinstated.

Arbitration Award ModificationCPLR Article 75Arbitrator Exceeded AuthorityConsent AwardEmployment TerminationDisciplinary ActionSuspension PenaltyAppellate ReviewPublic Policy ViolationIrrational Award
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbetta v. Chemlawn Services Corp.

Plaintiff Joanne Barbetta sued Chemlawn Services Corporation, alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment under Title VII and New York state laws. Chemlawn moved for summary judgment. The court declined pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims, granting summary judgment for Chemlawn on those. However, the court denied Chemlawn's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, finding exhaustion of administrative remedies and substantial factual questions regarding constructive discharge and the hostile work environment. The court ruled that continued employment did not necessarily negate constructive discharge and that evidence of workplace pornography and offensive conduct was sufficient to proceed to trial on the hostile environment claim.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawPendent JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesEEOCSexual Discrimination
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund Ex Rel. Capo v. Catucci

The NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund, an employee medical services fund, sued Sabato Catucci and his three sons for allegedly withholding payments from Saleo Trucking Corporation to the fund. This action followed a prior judgment against the corporation for delinquent contributions. The plaintiff sought to hold the defendants personally liable under alter ego, breach of ERISA fiduciary duty, and embezzlement theories. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the breach of ERISA fiduciary duty claim against Sabato Catucci, finding him to be a fiduciary who misused plan assets. However, claims against his sons were dismissed due to lack of sufficient control over the corporation. The alter ego claim against Sabato Catucci will proceed to trial, and the embezzlement claim was dismissed for not supporting a private civil cause of action.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentEmployee Benefit PlanMultiemployer FundSelf-DealingCorporate ControlLabor Law
References
32
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24011 [82 Misc 3d 812]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

Smith v. Ryder

The Supreme Court, Albany County, addressed a negligence case where plaintiff Karla Smith sued Richard Ryder, Jr., a newspaper delivery person, and The Hearst Corporation/Hearst Communications, Inc., after Ryder struck her in a crosswalk. The core legal dispute involved whether Ryder was an employee or an independent contractor for Hearst, which would determine Hearst's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Hearst moved for summary judgment, arguing that Labor Law and Workers' Compensation Law provisions classifying delivery persons as independent contractors for statutory benefits should override common law and apply to negligence claims. However, the court denied Hearst's motion, ruling that these statutes do not abrogate the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior in tort cases. The court found that a triable question of fact existed regarding Ryder's employment status, based on Hearst's alleged control over his delivery methods, monetary aspects, and disciplinary processes.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceNewspaper DeliveryStatutory InterpretationCommon LawLabor Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pelligrino v. Universal Maritime Service Co.

This maritime personal injury case involves plaintiff Dennis Pelligrino, a marine carpenter, who was injured after falling from grease-coated heavy machinery he was securing on a vessel. He sued Universal Maritime Service Company, Inc., the stevedoring company, and Waterman Steamship Corporation, the vessel owner. The court denied Universal's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding its alleged negligence in handling the cargo and failing to ensure safety. Conversely, Waterman's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, as the court found no evidence that the vessel owner breached its duties to longshoremen or actively participated in the cargo operations. Consequently, the complaint against Waterman was dismissed, while the action against Universal was severed.

Maritime personal injuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActStevedoring negligenceVessel owner dutiesSummary judgmentCargo securingHazardous conditionsCosmolineNegligenceShipowner liability
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 9,252 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