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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06926 [165 AD3d 964]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2018

Paguay v. Cup of Tea, LLC

The plaintiff, Edisson Paguay, was injured after falling through a roof during renovations and initiated an action against the general contractor, Atweek, Inc., and the building owner, Cup of Tea, LLC, asserting claims for negligence and Labor Law violations. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously awarded Paguay benefits, with Atweek or its insurer directed to pay. Atweek moved for summary judgment, contending the claims were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity, while Paguay sought summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against Cup of Tea. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division reversed in part, granting Atweek's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, finding Atweek was Paguay's employer. The court affirmed the denial of Paguay's motion against Cup of Tea, finding he failed to demonstrate foreseeability of the hazard.

personal injuryconstruction accidentLabor LawWorkers' Compensation Lawsummary judgmentexclusivity provisionemployer-employee relationshipappellate reviewpremises liabilityroof collapse
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosas v. Alice's Tea Cup, LLC

This Memorandum and Order addresses motions in a labor dispute brought by current and former employees against Alice’s Tea Cup, LLC and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent discovery into their immigration status, tax returns, and current employers, arguing irrelevance and undue prejudice. The court granted the protective order, finding this information irrelevant to wage claims and emphasizing the potential for intimidation. The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add Lauren Fox as a defendant, Teofilio Toribio as an opt-in plaintiff, and to remove class action allegations.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertimeProtective OrderDiscoveryImmigration StatusTax ReturnsCurrent EmployerLeave to Amend
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1998

In re the Claim of Garnica

The claimant was discharged from her employment as a laundry attendant because she failed to report a practical joke where sewing machine oil was placed in a coworker's drinking cup. Although the claimant did not place the substance in the cup, she was aware of the incident and failed to report it, which was a violation of the employer's policy. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the claimant's conduct was detrimental to the employer's best interest and constituted disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace IncidentEmployer Policy ViolationFailure to ReportLaundry AttendantAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ2952816
Regular
Nov 12, 2008

JOSE DE JESUS MARTINEZ vs. SOLO CUP COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. This reconsideration is necessary to allow the Board further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented in the case. A just and reasoned decision will be issued after this comprehensive review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSolo Cup CompanyZurich North AmericaGallagher Bassett ServicesADJ2952816SDO 0348895Opinion and OrderStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issues
References
0
Case No. ADJ1124123 (BGN 0064929) ADJ3374432 (BGN 0061307)
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

MARY BAKER vs. SWEEETHEART CUPS; CIGA by SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INSURANCE in liquidation and PORTEOUS FASTENERS/PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, CHUBB INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing the finding that CIGA remained liable for permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment for the applicant's industrial injuries. The Board found that because the applicant's injuries resulted in a joint and several award with a solvent insurer, Pacific Indemnity, CIGA has no obligation to pay as "other insurance" was available. The decision clarifies that CIGA is absolved of liability for medical treatment jointly caused by both injuries, but remains liable for treatment solely caused by the September 1979 injury. Pacific Indemnity is now solely responsible for all remaining permanent total disability indemnity and medical treatment costs, adjusting for payments already made by CIGA.

CIGASweetheart CupsPorteous FastenersFremont InsurancePacific IndemnityChubb InsuranceWilkinson doctrinejoint and several liabilitycovered claimsother insurance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Planet Wood Products Corp. v. Doe

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of TV tables, sought a permanent injunction against the Seafarers International Union of North America, Marine Allied Workers Division, to prevent recognition picketing. The plaintiff argued the picketing aimed to destroy an existing collective bargaining agreement with Local 48, United Industrial Unions, which it claimed was presumptively valid. The defendant union contended federal pre-emption under the Taft-Hartley Act, arguing the plaintiff's business was interstate and the contract with Local 48 was a collusive "sweetheart" agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's activities affected interstate commerce, thus establishing federal pre-emption and limiting state court jurisdiction in the absence of a proven breach of peace. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's contract with Local 48 was largely unenforced and not genuinely protecting its workers, thereby overcoming the presumption of its validity. Consequently, the defendant's picketing was deemed lawful, and the court denied the injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Labor disputeRecognition picketingFederal pre-emptionTaft-Hartley ActCollective bargaining agreementUnfair labor practicesState jurisdictionInterstate commerceInjunctive reliefContract validity
References
22
Showing 1-6 of 6 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