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

Amedore v. Peterson

Judge Graffeo dissents from a decision concerning the interpretation of New York Election Law § 11-302, which governs the use of special ballots by poll workers. The dissent argues that the statute's provisions, stating that special ballots should be provided "not earlier than two weeks before the election" and cast "not later than the close of the polls on election day," imply a requirement that these ballots also be cast no earlier than two weeks prior to the election. The Appellate Division, however, concluded there was no violation when ballots were both distributed and cast more than two weeks before the election, allowing them to be canvassed. Graffeo contends that this interpretation warrants further appellate review due to conflicting lower court conclusions and the importance of strict compliance with election procedures, referencing previous rulings on absentee balloting.

Statutory InterpretationElection LawSpecial BallotsPoll WorkersVoting ProceduresBallot CanvassingAppellate ReviewStrict ComplianceDissenting OpinionNew York Election Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yovanny L.

This case addresses the accuracy of court interpreter translations in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The Assistant Corporation Counsel moved to strike the complainant's testimony, alleging significant errors by the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. After conducting a hearing and considering testimony from both the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the interpreter, the court acknowledged that some minor errors in translation and interpreter conduct occurred. However, the court ultimately found these errors to be isolated instances and not sufficiently serious or pervasive to cause major prejudice to any party. Consequently, the drastic remedy of striking the testimony and starting anew was denied, and the trial was ordered to resume with a different Mandarin interpreter.

Juvenile DelinquencyCourt InterpretersTranslation AccuracyDue Process RightsEvidentiary MotionTestimony AdmissibilityMandarin LanguageFamily Court ProcedureJudicial ReviewProcedural Errors
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00229
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Patsis (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that Louiza Patsis, a linguist working for LIS, was an employee and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. LIS contended that Patsis was an independent contractor and challenged the Board's adherence to Department of Labor guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship. The court noted the control LIS exercised over its linguists through a written agreement and job assignments, and found no inconsistency with the Department of Labor guidelines.

unemployment insuranceemployment relationshipindependent contractorappellate divisionlabor lawunemployment benefitsstatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewlegal interpreting
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00228 [201 AD3d 1164]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Debora (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board determined that Fausto Debora, a linguist, was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of an employment relationship. The court noted that LIS exercised sufficient control over its linguists by screening qualifications, negotiating pay, and assigning jobs, despite some flexibility offered to the linguists. The decision also dismissed LIS's argument regarding Department of Labor guidelines, stating no inconsistency was found with established common-law tests for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLinguist ServicesControl TestDepartment of Labor GuidelinesEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P.

This appeal focuses on the statutory interpretation of the phrase 'by virtue of' within the luxury decontrol provisions (RSL §§ 26-504.1, 26-504.2) of the Rent Stabilization Law. Plaintiffs, tenants of the Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town Complex, alleged that their apartments were improperly deregulated, asserting that units receiving J-51 tax benefits should be exempt from high-rent/high-income decontrol. Defendants argued that the deregulation prohibition only applied if J-51 benefits were the exclusive reason for rent stabilization, an interpretation previously endorsed by the motion court and the DHCR. The appellate court rejected this narrow reading, concluding that 'by virtue of' does not imply exclusivity and that inserting 'solely' into the statute was an impermissible act of statutory construction. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's dismissal and reinstated the complaint, affirming that buildings receiving J-51 tax benefits remain subject to the RSL during the entire benefit period.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DecontrolJ-51 Tax Abatement ProgramStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceHousing LawTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant DisputeReal Property Tax LawNew York City Administrative Code
References
24
Case No. ADJ4388600
Regular
Sep 09, 2011

CARLOS CALVILLO vs. ALLIED BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The lien claimant, Joyce Altman Interpreters, sought reconsideration of an award for interpreter services, arguing they were owed the full amount claimed plus penalties and interest. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The judge found that while some interpreter services were compensable, the claimant's documentation was deficient and charges were unreasonable, precluding full recovery of penalties and interest. The Board agreed that statutory provisions do not expressly allow penalties and interest for interpreter services in this context.

Lien claimantJoyce Altman InterpretersPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings and AwardCompromise and Releasepenalties and interestLabor Code section 4600reasonably required interpreter servicesReport and Recommendationcustodian of records
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Graham v. Armstrong Contracting & Supply Co.

This case addresses the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 39, specifically regarding eligibility for partial disability benefits due to dust disease. The claimant, exposed to harmful dust between 1931-1966 and 1971-1974, was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1979. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied compensation, interpreting the 1974 amendment to require six months of injurious exposure after July 1, 1974. The court reversed this decision, ruling that a literal interpretation of the statutory language "on and after such date" would frustrate legislative intent. The court concluded that the word "and" should be read as "or" to align with the legislative goal of expanding compensation coverage for workers partially disabled by dust diseases. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Workers' Compensation LawDust DiseaseAsbestosisPartial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewNew YorkInjurious ExposureEligibility for Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belmonte v. Snashall

The case involves licensed physicians challenging the Workers' Compensation Board's interpretation of "board certified" concerning independent medical examinations (IMEs) under Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (3) (a). The Board had defined "board certified" as certification by a specialty board recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), which the petitioners disputed. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioners, invalidating the Board's interpretation and regulations, and annulling denials of authorization. On appeal, the court held that the Board's interpretation was not owed deference as it was a matter of pure statutory interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the Legislature intended "board certified" to mean certification by the Workers' Compensation Board itself, rather than by external medical specialty boards, and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Independent Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationBoard CertificationAdministrative Agency DeferenceMedical Specialty BoardsLegislative IntentPhysiciansPodiatristsAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. ADJ9638509; ADJ9638510
Regular
Nov 17, 2020

CESAR MARROQUIN vs. OAKWOOD CEMETERY, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board rescinded the original Findings and Order, finding that Advanced Pain Control's declaration under Labor Code section 4903.8(d) was valid, but Quality Interpreting's declaration was invalid due to the declarant's lack of personal knowledge and insufficient supporting evidence. Consequently, Quality Interpreting's lien was dismissed for failing to comply with statutory requirements and for being untimely filed. The case was returned for further proceedings regarding Advanced Pain Control's lien.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)Joint Findings and Orderprima facie evidencecompetent to testifylien claimantdeposition transcripthearsay evidencepersonal knowledgeevidentiary ruleslien conference
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,991 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