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
Dec 03, 2013

Maldonado v. BTB Events & Celebrations, Inc.

This case involves claims by food-delivery workers against catering companies (Between the Bread) for underpayment under federal (FLSA) and state (NYLL) law, centering on an 11% mandatory delivery surcharge. Plaintiffs argued this surcharge was a tip or gratuity that they were entitled to, while defendants maintained it was an administrative charge. The court analyzed whether the 11% surcharge constituted a gratuity under both FLSA and NYLL, applying different legal standards. For FLSA claims and NYLL claims prior to January 1, 2011, the court found in favor of the defendants, ruling the surcharge was not a gratuity. However, for NYLL claims from January 1, 2011, onwards, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding the surcharge was a purported gratuity due to stricter NYSDOL regulations and the employer's insufficient notification.

FLSANYLLMinimum WageOvertime CompensationTip CreditGratuity DisputeService ChargeDelivery WorkersCatering CompanySummary Judgment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

UNITED FOOD AND COMMER. WORKERS UNIONS AND FOOD EMPLOYEES BENEFIT FUND v. DeBuono

The United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Food Employees Benefit Fund, headquartered in California, challenged New York’s Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) surcharge system. The Fund argued that the surcharges violated the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and were actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. New York’s HCRA imposes surcharges on patient care, with higher rates for payors not registered with the state, a category the Fund fell into. The Fund contended that these additional costs were punitive and disproportionately affected out-of-state payors. The defendants maintained that the system was not discriminatory and offered a practical alternative. The court, acting sua sponte, assessed its subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA). It concluded that the HCRA surcharges constituted 'taxes' for TIA purposes and that New York State provided an adequate remedy through declaratory judgment under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3001. Consequently, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Health Care Reform ActHCRA SurchargesTax Injunction ActSubject Matter JurisdictionCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseERISARegulatory FeesState TaxationFederal Abstention
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Levin

This case concerns an appeal by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and the National Association of Independent Insurers against a determination by the New York Department of Insurance. The dispute centers on the New York Health Care Reform Act of 1996 (HCRA), which imposes surcharges on health care payments to fund 'public good' programs. The Department of Insurance interpreted the 8.18% surcharge on no-fault motor vehicle insurance payments for medical services as an allowable offset against an eligible person's 'basic economic loss' benefit package. Petitioners argued that this interpretation unfairly reduces the total available coverage under no-fault policies. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners' action, finding the Department's interpretation reasonable. The appellate court affirmed, deferring to the agency's expertise, and concluded that the surcharge is an inseparable component of medical service costs and can therefore be offset against no-fault policy limits.

New York Health Care Reform ActHCRANo-Fault InsuranceSurchargeBasic Economic LossInsurance LawPublic Health LawAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Selective Insurance Company of America v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, a group of insurance carriers, challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board’s refusal to issue them a credit or refund for assessments paid in excess of surcharges collected from their policyholders between 2001 and 2009. This discrepancy arose due to different methodologies used to calculate assessments (by the Board based on "total written premiums") and surcharges (by carriers based on "standard premiums"), resulting in some carriers collecting more in surcharges (windfall carriers) and others paying more in assessments (shortfall carriers), like the petitioners. In 2009, the Legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Law to align the assessment methodology with "standard premiums" and authorized the Board to collect excess funds from windfall carriers. The amendment also allowed the Board to issue credits or refunds for "overpayments made to the fund." Petitioners interpreted this as applicable to shortfall carriers, but the Board denied their request, contending "overpayments" referred only to those made by windfall carriers. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding its interpretation rational and consistent with the legislative intent, which was focused on deficit reduction and did not provide for relief to shortfall carriers.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance CarriersAssessments and SurchargesStatutory InterpretationCredit/RefundOverpaymentsShortfall CarriersWindfall CarriersAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Velu v. Velocity Express, Inc.

Trevor Velu, a delivery driver, sued Velocity Express, Inc. (VEI) alleging unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, contending he was an employee. He also brought claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit related to a fuel surcharge. The Court determined that Velu was an independent contractor, not an employee, under both federal and state labor laws, leading to the dismissal of his wage and overtime claims. Summary judgment was denied for both parties on the breach of contract claim due to an unclear definition of 'net revenue' concerning the fuel surcharge. The quantum meruit claim was dismissed because a valid agreement existed between the parties.

FLSAIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitDelivery DriverWage DisputeOvertime
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Parson

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree. The Supreme Court, New York County, sentenced the defendant as a second felony offender to two consecutive terms and two concurrent terms. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in precluding alibi testimony due to late notice and in discharging a sworn juror due to severe hardship. The court also found that the defendant received meaningful representation and that only one mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee was imposed. Defendant's remaining contentions were unpreserved and rejected.

Robbery First DegreeRobbery Second DegreeAlibi Testimony PreclusionJuror DischargeMeaningful RepresentationMandatory SurchargeCrime Victim Assistance FeeAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawJury Trial
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02907 [238 AD3d 849]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v. Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist.

This case addresses a dispute between the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (CCT) and individual retirees against the Chappaqua Central School District regarding the discontinuation of Medicare Part B IRMAA surcharge reimbursements. The plaintiffs brought a hybrid action alleging breach of contract and seeking relief under CPLR article 78. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the entire action. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 claims due to lack of standing for the CCT and Debellis, and statute of limitations for the individual plaintiffs. However, the court reinstated the breach of contract cause of action for the CCT and the majority of individual plaintiffs, finding that the CCT had standing as a party to the relevant agreement and the retirees were not bound by the CBA's grievance procedures.

Medicare Part BIRMAA SurchargesRetiree Health BenefitsBreach of ContractCPLR Article 78 ProceedingStanding DoctrineStatute of LimitationsCollective Bargaining AgreementsExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAppellate Division
References
23
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2025

Matter of Black

Attorney Bernard S. Black was disbarred for professional misconduct. Serving as conservator for his sister, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, Black attempted to divert approximately $1 million from their mother's estate to himself and his children by deliberately withholding information from the Colorado Probate Court. The Colorado courts found he breached his fiduciary duties, engaged in deceptive conduct, and committed civil theft, imposing substantial surcharges and treble damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's findings that Black violated professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, making false statements to a tribunal, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Despite his claims of good faith and character evidence, the court found disbarment necessary due to the severe nature of his actions against a vulnerable family member.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsDisbarmentFiduciary Duty BreachConflict of InterestFraud and DeceitFalse Statements to TribunalConservatorshipEstate DiversionCivil Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Turner

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially held Winston Spencer Waters, guardian for Thelma Williams, personally responsible for a $3,000 accountant's fee and a $4,500 guardian ad litem fee. Waters appealed this order. The appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, vacating the order that Waters personally pay the fees. The court found that Waters had satisfactorily performed his guardianship duties, as confirmed by a Special Referee and Justice Bransten, contradicting any basis for personal liability. Citing Mental Hygiene Law sections 81.37(a), 81.28, and 81.35, the court concluded that a guardian's resignation does not warrant a fee imposition or surcharge, and compensation is typically paid from the incapacitated person's estate unless duties were performed unsatisfactorily. Consequently, the fees are now to be paid from Thelma Williams' funds, not by Waters personally.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonsGuardian FeesPersonal ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewMental Hygiene LawEstate FundsFiduciary DutyCourt Order ReversalAccountant Fees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Iorio v. Winebow, Inc.

Plaintiff Janet D'lorio initiated an action against Defendant Winebow, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty by failing to provide plan documents and by misrepresenting benefits under its long-term disability and life insurance plan. Specifically, she brought claims under ERISA § 502(c)(1) for failure to furnish requested information and ERISA § 502(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duties. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the ERISA § 502(c)(1) claim because the plaintiff only made oral requests for information, which is insufficient under the statute. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim, finding that equitable relief in the form of a surcharge remedy for monetary compensation might be appropriate for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty through misrepresentations and failure to provide a proper summary plan description.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee BenefitsDisability BenefitsLife InsuranceSummary Plan DescriptionMisrepresentationMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefSurcharge Remedy
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 10 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