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

A. Uliano & Son. Ltd. v. New York State Department of Labor

This case involves a judicial review of an administrative determination by the New York State Department of Labor concerning prevailing wages and supplemental benefits under Labor Law § 220. The court found that the Department of Labor failed to adequately explain the daily classification of an employee, John Bradley, leading to an unsupported determination of wage underpayment, which was annulled and remitted for reassessment. However, the court affirmed the Department's findings regarding the number of hours worked by employees, the petitioners' willful violation of prevailing wage laws, and the falsification of payroll records, as these determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The decision emphasizes the deference given to the Department's expertise in trade classifications and the employer's burden to negate calculations when records are inaccurate.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawLabor LawPrevailing WageSubstantial EvidenceUnderpayment of WagesWage ClassificationPayroll FalsificationWillful ViolationNew York
References
23
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quadir v. New York State Department of Labor

Plaintiff Mohammed Quadir sued the New York State Department of Labor, alleging disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodations, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State and City Human Rights Laws (NYSHRL, NYCHRL). The Department moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. However, it allowed the claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, adverse employment action due to disability, and retaliation to proceed, construing them under the Rehabilitation Act. The court also denied Quadir's application for pro bono counsel without prejudice, stating it was too early to determine the merits of the case.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPro Se Litigant
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. (B&C), a general contractor, sought to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing state prevailing benefit supplement laws. This action stemmed from B&C's subcontractor, Shared Management Group, Ltd., allegedly failing to pay union-related benefit funds, leading the DOL to order the withholding of payments to B&C. B&C argued that New York Labor Law §§ 220 and 223, which impose liability on general contractors for subcontractor non-compliance with prevailing wage laws, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court reviewed various precedents on ERISA preemption, including GE I and GE II, and concluded that New York Labor Law § 223 is fundamentally linked to § 220, which directly relates to ERISA plans. Therefore, the court found § 223 also preempted by ERISA, granting B&C's motion for summary judgment and denying the DOL's cross-motion.

ERISA preemptionLabor LawPrevailing Wage ActBenefit supplementsGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor defaultPublic works contractSummary judgmentFederal preemptionEmployee benefit plans
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baywood Electric Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor

Baywood Electric Corporation, an electrical contractor, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a final order from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor. The Commissioner had determined that Baywood willfully violated Labor Law § 220 by failing to pay prevailing wages and supplements on a public works contract with the Town of Babylon, imposing back wages, interest, a civil penalty, and debarment. Baywood contended its due process rights were violated by the denial of an adjournment for the administrative hearing and that the willfulness finding lacked substantial evidence. The reviewing court rejected these arguments, affirming the Commissioner's determination and dismissing Baywood's proceeding, finding ample opportunity for counsel and substantial evidence of willful violation based on Baywood's experience and prior similar conduct.

public worksprevailing wage lawLabor Law § 220CPLR article 78due processadministrative lawwillful violationelectrical contractorcivil penaltydebarment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

The appellate court addressed appeals by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) concerning judgments that annulled the DOL's determination that prevailing wages must be paid by Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. for refuse collection, specifically questioning if this applied to private buildings. The court first clarified that the actions were purely for declaratory judgment, not CPLR article 78 proceedings to annul determinations. Interpreting Labor Law § 231 (1), the court found that its plain language and legislative intent did not limit its application to public buildings. Consequently, the court concluded that employers are indeed obligated to pay prevailing wages to employees collecting garbage or refuse from both public and private buildings under municipal contracts. The judgments of the lower court were modified, and declarations were amended to reflect this obligation.

Prevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationPublic WorksBuilding Service WorkGarbage CollectionRefuse RemovalMunicipal ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ1303018 (ANA 0382837)
Regular
May 18, 2009

GEORGE T. JOHNSON vs. NEW JERSEY NETS, INA/ACE USA, SEATTLE SUPERSONICS, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling finding California had jurisdiction over Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (Washington L&I) in a claim by former NBA player George T. Johnson. The WCAB determined personal jurisdiction over Washington L&I was not established and that the issue is moot unless Washington L&I was duly authorized to provide workers' compensation insurance in California per Labor Code section 3700. The case is returned to the trial level to determine if the employer, Seattle Supersonics, was lawfully insured or self-insured in California during the alleged injury period, which could result in Seattle being held liable as an uninsured employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWashington State Department of Labor & IndustriesSeattle Supersonicsjurisdictionsubject matter jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictioncumulative trauma injuryprofessional basketball playeruninsured employerduly authorized insurer
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03637 [195 AD3d 1180]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Matter of Dalotto v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Ruthanne Dalotto, an employee of the New York State Department of Labor, was terminated after one year of workers' compensation leave. She commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging the Department violated Civil Service Law and her due process rights by requiring medical documentation before scheduling a fitness-for-duty examination. The Supreme Court dismissed her petition, and Dalotto appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the Department's requirement for medical documentation was rational and that Dalotto's due process rights were satisfied by notice and an opportunity to respond before termination. The court also found no improper consideration of her confidential medical documentation.

Employment TerminationWorkers' Compensation LeaveMedical Fitness for DutyCivil Service Law § 71CPLR Article 78Due Process RightsAdministrative LawArbitrary and Capricious StandardAppellate ReviewPublic Employees Federation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 17,189 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