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

Cano v. Mallory Management

The defendant, Con Edison, sought to dismiss a negligence action, claiming the plaintiff's status as an undocumented alien should bar their lawsuit. Con Edison referenced Hoffman Plastic Compounds v National Labor Relations Bd., which limited back pay for undocumented workers in federal courts. However, the court found Hoffman to be narrow in scope and not applicable to tort claims in New York State courts. Citing New York public policy and various precedents, the court affirmed that undocumented status does not preclude an individual from pursuing personal injury claims. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, although the plaintiff's immigration status may be presented to a jury regarding lost wages, but not pain and suffering.

NegligenceImmigration StatusIllegal AlienTortious ConductMotion to DismissHoffman Plastic CompoundsLost WagesPain and SufferingWorkers' CompensationPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2009

Angamarca v. New York City Partnership Housing Development Fund, Inc.

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision that an undocumented alien worker's immigration status is irrelevant to the recovery of future medical treatment costs. Justice Tom states that Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC only addressed lost wages and does not extend to future medical expenses. The dissent contends that preventing the jury from considering the plaintiff's non-resident status and intention to return to Ecuador, where medical costs are lower, leads to an unfair and excessive damage award based solely on U.S. medical costs, which constitutes a windfall for the plaintiff. The dissent advocates for reversal and a new trial on damages for future medical expenses, asserting that public policy does not justify such excessive awards.

Immigration StatusFuture Medical ExpensesUndocumented AlienPersonal InjuryDamagesDissenting OpinionCost of CareEvidence PreclusionJury InstructionBalbuena Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Major Perry Street Corp.

This opinion addresses whether undocumented workers are eligible to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), particularly in light of the Second Circuit's Palma decision, which limited remedies for undocumented workers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court holds that undocumented workers remain eligible for FLSA recovery, distinguishing FLSA from NLRA based on their remedial schemes, statutory approaches to unlawful activity, and the nature of backpay (retrospective vs. post-termination). Consequently, the court approves a Notice of Pendency including language that permits undocumented workers to participate in the collective action regardless of immigration status and denies the defendants' motion for discovery into the immigration status of potential plaintiffs.

FLSANYLLUndocumented WorkersImmigration StatusMinimum WageOvertime WagesCollective ActionNotice of PendencyDiscovery MotionNLRA
References
24
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Pie of Port Jefferson Corp.

Plaintiffs Oscar Rodriguez and Alexis Torres filed an action against The Pie of Port Jefferson Corporation and Kristen Pace seeking unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. They appealed a Magistrate Judge's order compelling them to respond to interrogatories regarding their immigration status. The District Court, reviewing the order for clear error or being contrary to law, noted that courts generally find immigration status irrelevant in FLSA cases due to the potential for intimidation and a chilling effect on plaintiffs. The court distinguished the Palma decision, which limited backpay for undocumented workers under the NLRA, by affirming that undocumented workers are still protected by the FLSA and can seek backpay. Consequently, the District Court reversed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it contrary to law.

FLSAovertime wagesundocumented workersimmigration statusdiscovery disputeMagistrate Judge appeallegal precedentchilling effectemployee rightsNew York Labor Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oro v. 23 East 79th Street Corp.

This memorandum opinion addresses a personal injury action where the court modified an order, allowing discovery into plaintiff Geovanny Oro’s immigration status, deeming it material to his lost earnings claim. The court also affirmed the denial of the third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss, noting that tax returns are not generally discoverable when other income documentation is provided. The opinion extensively discusses the impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v NLRB on lost wage claims for undocumented workers in state common-law tort actions, contrasting divergent appellate interpretations. Ultimately, the court concluded that while an undocumented plaintiff may seek lost earnings, their immigration status is a relevant factor for the jury to consider in determining the practical likelihood of continued employment in the United States, rather than an outright bar to recovery.

Immigration StatusLost WagesPersonal InjuryDiscoveryTax ReturnsUndocumented WorkersAppellate ReviewFederal PreemptionState Tort LawNational Labor Relations Act
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25022
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of Mountainside Residential Care Ctr. (S.O.)

Mountainside Residential Care Center petitioned for a guardian for S.O., an undocumented stroke patient needing Medicaid for care. The Supreme Court, Delaware County, appointed S.O.'s children, C.O. and S.O., Jr., as co-guardians of his property. The core issue was granting guardians authority to interact with federal immigration agencies (USCIS/ICE) to pursue Permanent Residence Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) status, essential for S.O. to qualify for Medicaid benefits. The court granted this authority, emphasizing the guardians' discretion and the sealed nature of the case, to allow the family to navigate the complex process for obtaining critical healthcare funding.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonsMedicaid EligibilityUndocumented ImmigrantsPRUCOL StatusImmigration LawHealth Care BenefitsElder CareFamily GuardiansCourt Orders
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziehm v. City of Buffalo

Linda Ziehm, an absentee investigator for the City of Buffalo, was terminated in 1979 for violating a residency ordinance, despite claiming exemption under a collective bargaining agreement based on her residency status before January 1, 1977. Although a hearing officer recommended her reinstatement, the commissioner rejected this, finding she was a city resident until June 1979. The Supreme Court annulled the commissioner's determination, ordering Ziehm's reinstatement with back pay. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, dismissed Ziehm's petition, and confirmed the commissioner's initial determination. The appellate decision concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the commissioner's finding that Ziehm did not qualify for the residency exemption.

Residency ordinanceEmployment terminationCollective bargaining agreementDomicileAdministrative determinationSubstantial evidenceCPLR Article 78Appellate reviewCity employeesExemptions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz Park Avenue Corp. v. Jagger

Judge Ciparick issues a concurring opinion in an ejectment action, agreeing with the outcome of summary judgment against a tenant but dissenting from the majority's legal interpretation regarding the compatibility of B-1/B-2 visas and primary residency under New York's rent stabilization laws. Ciparick argues that while visa status can be a factor, it should not automatically disqualify a tenant from primary residency. The judge found that summary judgment was appropriately granted due to the tenant's unrebutted sporadic occupancy, lack of evidence of New York residency, and admissions of non-occupancy, establishing a prima facie case of non-primary residence, aligning with the rent stabilization law's goal of returning underutilized apartments to the market.

Rent StabilizationPrimary ResidenceB-2 VisaEjectment ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Rent LawImmigration StatusTenant OccupancyHousing LawConcurring Opinion
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,588 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