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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1971

Claim of Pollak v. Robert Day, Inc.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded disability benefits to a waiter under the Disability Benefits Law, finding him to be a 'shape-up worker' concurrently employed by Creative Caterers, Inc. and Robert Day, Inc. The claimant fell ill in February 1970 and was hospitalized, having worked for both employers in the same calendar week. Appellants challenged the board's finding of concurrent employment, citing the claimant's sporadic work record and arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that concurrent employment and eligibility are questions of fact solely within the board's province, and its conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence. The court clarified that regular employment by the *same* employers within the same calendar week is not necessary; only regular and customary employment by more than one covered employer within the same week is required.

disability benefitsconcurrent employmentshape-up workerWorkmen's Compensation LawArticle 9substantial evidencequestion of factapportionmentemployer liabilityappellate review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. v. Penn Star Insurance

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. sued its insurer, Penn-Star Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that Penn-Star must cover a personal injury lawsuit filed against Same Day. Penn-Star moved for summary judgment, arguing Same Day failed to provide timely notice of the claim and that the incident was excluded from the policy. The Court granted Penn-Star's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Same Day's notice to Penn-Star was untimely by approximately ten months, or at least two months even under Same Day's arguments, and that the delay was inexcusable under New York law. Consequently, Penn-Star is not obligated to provide coverage.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentTimely NoticePolicy CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal InjuryNew York LawInsurance Policy ExclusionCommercial General LiabilityAs Soon As Practicable Clause
References
39
Case No. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nghiem v. United States Department of Veteran Affairs

Plaintiff, an Asian-American geriatric dentist, alleged racial and ethnic discrimination and other torts following her 1993 termination from the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Bronx, New York. She sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and four individual supervisors. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all federal claims, including those under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationCivil RightsDue ProcessStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal EmploymentVeterans Affairs
References
70
Case No. 570086/19
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2020

People v. Daye (Kenrick)

The People appealed an order from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, which granted the defendant's motion to suppress a dog recovered from his backyard. The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed the suppression order, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's credibility determinations. The court held that the police, assisting an Administration for Children's Services (ACS) caseworker, exceeded the narrow scope of a Family Court Act § 1034 order by unilaterally entering the defendant's enclosed backyard without a warrant or exigent circumstances. The court emphasized that the order did not grant unfettered access to the curtilage of the defendant's home, which is protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Fourth AmendmentSuppression MotionBackyard SearchCurtilageFamily Court ActWarrant RequirementExigent CircumstancesPolice AuthorityACS AssistanceCredibility Determination
References
8
Case No. ADJ6777284, ADJ6777302, ADJ7465280
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

DEBBIE DAY vs. ALBERTSONS, SEDWICK CMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved three cumulative trauma injuries sustained by applicant Debbie Day while employed by Albertsons and SaveMart Supermarkets. The arbitrator issued a Findings, Award, and Order, and subsequently a Report on Petition for Reconsideration. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the arbitrator's report which clarified that SaveMart/Pegasus's claims for contribution and reimbursement in earlier injury years were moot as their liability stemmed solely from the 2009 injury. The arbitrator's Opinion on Decision was amended to reflect this clarification regarding SaveMart/Pegasus's sole liability for the 2009 injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportAmended OpinionCumulative Trauma InjuriesDate of InjuryContributionReimbursementSaveMart SupermarketsAlbertsons
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,857 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