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

Claim of Carlineo v. Snelling & Snelling, LLC

The claimant, a laborer, sustained work-related leg injuries and filed a workers' compensation claim. The core issue was determining the responsible employer between Snelling & Snelling, LLC (general employer) and F.T. Well Support (special employer). After initial hearings, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that F.T. Well Support was the sole special employer and Snelling & Snelling, LLC was 100% liable. Snelling appealed, alleging they were denied a full opportunity to present evidence and challenging the sole liability determination. The Court found no error, concluding that Snelling had a fair chance to develop the record and that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings regarding F.T. Well Support as the exclusive special employer and Snelling's sole liability. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentEmployer LiabilityTemporary Employment AgencyAppellate ReviewRemandEvidentiary HearingsWaiverSubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05725 [221 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2023

MJ Lilly Assoc., LLC v. Ovis Creative, LLC

The plaintiff, MJ Lilly Associates, LLC, initiated legal action against Ovis Creative, LLC, alleging violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA). The claims stemmed from the defendant's alleged failure to provide written contracts and to timely pay for freelance work performed by the plaintiff. Ovis Creative, LLC subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the FIFA causes of action, asserting that MJ Lilly Associates, LLC did not qualify as a 'freelance worker' under the Act. The Supreme Court denied this dismissal motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant's submitted evidence did not meet the criteria for 'documentary evidence' required for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and that the plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a)(7).

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFAIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceContract DisputePayment DisputeNew York City Administrative Code
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MLF3 Airitan LLC v. 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC

This case involves MLF3 Airitan LLC and MLF3 DC LLC (plaintiffs) suing 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC, 167th Street Mazal LLC, Eran Polack, Amir Hasid, Nir Amsel, Bank Leumi USA, and John Doe numbers 1 through 10 (defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty, trust fund diversion, and a declaratory judgment regarding mechanic's liens. Plaintiffs sought an accounting, damages, and priority for their mechanic's liens over Bank Leumi's liens, citing improper notice of lending and unfiled material modifications to loan agreements under the Lien Law. Defendants Bank Leumi and the Mazal entities cross-moved to dismiss based on various procedural grounds and failure to state a cause of action. The court granted Bank Leumi's motions to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action concerning the priority claims. However, it denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action, allowing the action to proceed concurrently with a lien foreclosure action. Additionally, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motions for an interim accounting and for consolidation of the actions.

Mechanic's LiensDeclaratory JudgmentTrust Fund DiversionBreach of Fiduciary DutyBuilding Loan AgreementLien Law Article 3-AMotion to DismissInterim AccountingConsolidation of ActionsPriority Disputes
References
35
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03319
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2023

Winston Salem RI LLC v. Ladder Capital Fin. LLC

This case concerns an appeal by Winston Salem RI LLC against Ladder Capital Finance LLC regarding the dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, reinstating claims related to the payment of forbearance fees and improper foreclosures, while affirming other aspects. The court clarified that a specific loan agreement section does not bar claims not challenging the reasonableness of Ladder's actions. Furthermore, it ruled that demand futility was adequately pleaded under Delaware law and that there is no heightened pleading requirement for breach of contract claims.

Breach of ContractDemand FutilityLoan AgreementsForbearance FeesImproper ForeclosuresAppellate ReviewDelaware LawPleading RequirementsContractual InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,131 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