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
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert E. Lawyer, an employee, suffered serious personal injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a sign on the defendant's building. He and his wife alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for the plaintiffs and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the nondelegable duty of owners under the statute. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Labor Law §§ 200 (1) and 241 (6), dismissing these causes of action due to a lack of specific regulation violations for § 241 (6) and no demonstration of supervisory control or notice for § 200 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction Site SafetyOwner LiabilityNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafe Workplace
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lodato v. Greyhawk North America, LLC

The plaintiff, injured in a fall from a scaffold due to an electrical shock during a school renovation, sued Greyhawk North America, LLC, the construction manager, for violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability against Greyhawk and denied Greyhawk's cross-motion to dismiss. Greyhawk appealed, contending it was not a liable entity under the statutes. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that Greyhawk's contract with the school district bestowed sufficient supervisory control and authority over safety, making it a statutory agent of the owner and thus liable under the Labor Law.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffolding FallElectrical InjurySummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityAppellate DecisionWorkplace Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connor v. Pier Sixty, LLC

Plaintiffs, servers assigned by a temporary service agency, initiated a putative class action against defendants Pier Sixty, LLC, AK Pier Sixty, LLC, and Abigail Kirsch, alleging violations of Labor Law § 196-d. The plaintiffs claim they never received a share of the mandatory gratuity charges imposed by the defendants on customers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees, and thus not protected by the statute, citing Bynog v Cipriani Group. The court denied the motion, ruling that the determination of an employment relationship is a factual assessment not suitable for a pre-answer motion to dismiss. The court noted that evidence suggested defendants exercised significant control over the temporary workers, a key factor in establishing an employment relationship.

Class ActionLabor Law § 196-dGratuity DisputeEmployee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusMotion to DismissFactual InquiryEmployer ControlTemporary WorkersWage Theft
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Plaintiff Gerald D. Broder initiated a class action against Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, Inc., alleging breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Law § 349, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Broder contended that the defendants failed to provide uniform cable service rates and notify customers of discounted "Winter Season" rates, in violation of federal and state statutes. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the referenced statutes were not expressly incorporated into the customer agreement and did not provide a private right of action, thus precluding Broder's claims. Broder's additional common law claims were also dismissed for lacking an independent common law duty. The plaintiff's motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal was consequently denied as moot.

breach of contractdeceptive practicesGeneral Business LawPublic Service Lawcable servicesuniform ratesprivate right of actionclass actionmotion to dismissinterlocutory appeal
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Rachimi v. Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck, P. C.

The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed a legal malpractice action as time-barred, applying the 1996 amendments to CPLR 214 (6). The plaintiff commenced the action more than four years after accrual and over 10 months after the amendments clarified a three-year statute of limitations. The Court found no due process violation in dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reason for the delay or reliance on the prior statute. This case was distinguished from a precedent where a shorter delay and prompt filing after the new statute's expiration mitigated the dismissal, as here the action became time-barred immediately upon the new statute's effective date.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsTime-BarredCPLR 214(6) AmendmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessDismissal of ComplaintAccrual RuleJudicial PrecedentRetroactive Application
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wildman

This case addresses the constitutionality of Administrative Code § 10-118 (b) of the City of New York, which prohibits transporting building materials without proof of ownership. Defendant challenged the statute, arguing the complaint was facially insufficient and that the statute violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption and being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Judge Michael Gerstein denied all of defendant's motions. The court found the complaint facially sufficient and determined that the statute does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and clear standards for enforcement, rationally deterring theft and vandalism.

ConstitutionalityDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineIrrebuttable PresumptionAdministrative CodeStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawFacial InsufficiencyProof of Ownership
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 6,849 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