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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duemmel v. Ruggeri-Minster, Inc.

The Supreme Court erred by denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff was a special employee. Despite being paid by a general employer, the plaintiff's injuries occurred while performing services under the control and direction of the defendant, exclusively for the defendant's benefit. This established the plaintiff as a special employee as a matter of law, meaning the plaintiff's prior receipt of Workers' Compensation benefits legally bars this current action.

special employee doctrinesummary judgmentworkers' compensation barappellate reviewemployer controlexclusive benefitemployment relationshipjudicial errorNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A maintenance employee for the New York City Housing Authority sustained a right knee injury in March 1978 during a mugging and reinjured it in May 1979 while moving a refrigerator. His application for accident disability retirement was denied by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, whose medical board found no causal relationship between the 1978 incident and the disability, and no accident in 1979. Special Term initially vacated this determination, concluding the 1979 event was an accident. However, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's judgment, holding that an injury occurring without an unexpected event during ordinary employment duties does not constitute an accidental injury. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove an unexpected event, as his knee merely 'gave way' while moving a refrigerator, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Accident Disability RetirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemKnee InjuryPerformance of DutiesCausal RelationshipMedical Board OpinionCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAccidental Injury DefinitionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. Consolidated Edison Employees' Mutual Aid Society, Inc.

This case addresses claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Consolidated Edison Employees’ Mutual Aid Society, Inc. (Mutual Aid) and its administrative officer, Paul R. Westerkamp. Plaintiffs, Consolidated Edison employees represented by Local 3, seek an equitable share of Mutual Aid's assets and a special emergency loan fund after their membership ceased in 1983. Building on an earlier decision, the court found that defendants retained benefit assets attributable to Local 3 for the benefit of Local 1-2, violating ERISA. The court also determined that Mr. Westerkamp breached his fiduciary duty by mismanaging assets and participating in a settlement detrimental to Local 3. Consequently, Mr. Westerkamp is barred from administering the Staten Island Relief Fund, and the parties are directed to propose methods for equitable asset distribution.

ERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanFiduciary Duty BreachAsset MismanagementEquitable DistributionUnion BenefitsConsolidated EdisonMutual Aid SocietyPaul R. WesterkampLocal 3 IBEW
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company v. Special Funds Conservation Comittee

An employee of Coca-Cola Bottling Company sustained a work-related injury in March 2007 and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits, payable by Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company. The employee was classified with a permanent partial disability, making the Special Disability Fund responsible for reimbursing Ace Fire after 260 weeks under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The injured employee settled a third-party personal injury action with Ace Fire's approval, but without the Special Disability Fund's consent. Ace Fire then commenced a proceeding to compel the Special Disability Fund's consent nunc pro tunc under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Court of Appeals held that if the Special Disability Fund's consent is required as a lienor under section 29 (1), the failure to obtain it can be cured by a court order nunc pro tunc under section 29 (5). The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundThird-Party ActionLienNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalStatutory InterpretationReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. & Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 153

This case concerns an appeal by Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 153, against Wells Fargo, seeking to compel arbitration after Wells Fargo discharged an employee. The dispute arose when Wells Fargo refused arbitration, citing the union's alleged non-compliance with preliminary grievance steps, which Special Term deemed a condition precedent to arbitration. The appellate court reversed this decision. It clarified that in labor-management agreements, unlike commercial arbitrations, compliance with grievance procedures constitutes procedural arbitrability, a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. Citing Federal law and the specific language of the collective bargaining agreement, the court denied Wells Fargo's request for a permanent stay and granted the union's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementProcedural ArbitrabilityConditions PrecedentFederal LawGrievance ProcedureStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationUnion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arteaga v. ISS Quality Service

Claimant, a maintenance worker hired to replace striking employees of ISS Quality Service, was assaulted and sustained injuries. A dispute arose regarding whether claimant was an employee of ISS or Contemporary Graphics Group (CGG), a temporary staffing agency. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found claimant solely employed by CGG, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, concluding claimant was a general employee of CGG and a special employee of ISS, apportioning liability equally. ISS and its carrier appealed the special employment designation as irrational, but the Board's decision was affirmed.

Employer-Employee RelationshipSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyAssault in EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision ReviewJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2000

Syku v. La Barranca Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a general employee of Vikrok Associates, was injured while working on premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the plaintiff was a special employee, thereby invoking the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court finding that the defendant controlled the plaintiff's work and directly paid him, thus establishing a special employment relationship. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, upholding the defendant's defense under the Workers' Compensation Law.

personal injuryspecial employmentworkers' compensationsummary judgmentliabilitygeneral employerappellate reversalpremises liabilitytort lawthird-party plaintiff
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,436 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