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

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chirino v. Sanitary Controls, Inc.

This case concerns appeals from Workers’ Compensation Board decisions that upheld the State Insurance Fund's cancellation of a workers’ compensation policy for Sanitary Controls, Inc. due to nonpayment. The Fund sent a cancellation notice on November 23, 1976, effective December 11, 1976. Sanitary received it eight days before the effective date. Concurrently, Sanitary filed for bankruptcy, and a court order stayed proceedings against it but did not explicitly stop the policy cancellation. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that service of cancellation is effective upon mailing, not receipt, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 54, subd 5, and that the bankruptcy filing did not negate Sanitary’s insurance obligations.

Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumBankruptcy LawService of NoticeInsurance LiabilityAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationEmployer ObligationsInsurer ObligationsBoard Decisions
References
4
Case No. 034765412M
Regular Panel Decision

McAtee v. Environmental Control Board of the Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, Darin E McAtee, sought to annul a New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) determination that found him in violation of Administrative Code § 28-404.1 and imposed a $4,800 fine. The violation stemmed from a window washing company hired by McAtee, whose worker lacked a rigger's license. McAtee argued that the Administrative Code section was vague as applied to nonsupervisory homeowners and that New York Labor Law preempted local laws regarding window washers. The court found that the ECB's interpretation of the statute had no rational basis, as the code's language did not apply to homeowners who neither hoisted nor supervised the work. Consequently, the court granted McAtee's petition, annulled the ECB's determination, and dismissed the notice of violation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationHomeowner LiabilityBuilding CodesRigger LicenseDue ProcessPreemptionNew York City
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Control Network Communications, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Plaintiff Control Network Communications, Inc. (CNC) initiated an action against defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 236, alleging breach of contract and fraud under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). CNC contended that Local 236 violated a 'most favored nations' clause in their collective bargaining agreement by offering more favorable terms to another employer, Adirondack Cabling. CNC's grievance was ultimately denied by the Labor Management Committee (LMC). The court granted Local 236's motion to dismiss, finding the LMC's decision on the breach of contract claim to be final and binding due to CNC's failure to timely petition for vacation. Additionally, the court ruled that CNC's fraud claim was preempted by the LMRA, as its resolution required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Breach of contractFraud claimLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Most favored nations clauseCollective bargaining agreement (CBA)Grievance procedureMotion to dismissFederal preemptionLabor Management Committee (LMC)Final and binding determination
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Matter of Whiting-Turner Contr. Co. v. Environmental Control Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York, which found Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in violation of New York City Building Code § BC 3301.2 and imposed a penalty of $2,400. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that Whiting-Turner was the general contractor and thus responsible for safety measures at a mall construction site, where a worker was injured. The court also upheld the Board's limitation of administrative appellate review to the record established before the hearing officer, as petitioner failed to show good cause for admitting new records after the hearing.

Building Code ViolationGeneral Contractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionEnvironmental Control BoardWork PermitSubstantial EvidenceRecord Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ8438071
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

MONICA CONTRERAS vs. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, SACRAMENTO METRO; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE IRVINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Monica Contreras was an employee of Keller Williams Realty. The WCAB determined that the initial finding was erroneously based on the legal requirement for real estate agents to be associated with a broker, rather than a factual analysis of the control exercised by the defendant. The case is returned to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and a new decision considering the factual relationship and the multi-factor test for employment status. The WCAB emphasized that the right to control the means and manner of work is the primary test.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonica ContrerasKeller Williams RealtyTower National InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorReal Estate Agent
References
16
Case No. 12-CV-8450 (JMF)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2014

Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.

Plaintiffs, a group of drivers for a black car business, sued the Defendants, a consortium of transportation and franchisor entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime. The central issue was whether the drivers should be classified as 'employees' or 'independent contractors.' The Court, after cross-motions for summary judgment, applied the economic reality test for FLSA and the control test for NYLL. The Court determined that, under both statutes, the drivers were independent contractors due to their control over their schedules, ability to work for competitors, significant business investments, and independent initiative. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Independent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationFLSANYLLBlack Car BusinessDriversSummary JudgmentEconomic Reality TestControl TestLabor Law
References
54
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05047
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2024

Cooper v. Bldg 7th St. LLC

This case involves an appeal regarding summary judgment motions on indemnification and breach of contract claims between defendants/third-party plaintiffs BLDG 7th Street, LLC et al. and third-party defendant Global Pest Control, LLC. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying summary judgment to Global on BLDG's contractual indemnification claim, citing an unclear and ambiguous indemnification agreement. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of BLDG's common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Global because plaintiff Dwayne Cooper was not alleged to have sustained a grave injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The dismissal of BLDG's breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance was also affirmed, as Global provided proof of its policy meeting contractual requirements. Consequently, issues of fact remain concerning the scope of the parties' indemnification agreement.

Contractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seelig v. Koehler

This is a dissenting opinion regarding the random drug testing of correction officers. Justice Milonas argues that the majority decision to allow such testing without reasonable suspicion oversteps the boundaries set by the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The dissent emphasizes that New York State law requires more stringent conditions for random searches, particularly concerning privacy interests and government justification. Milonas distinguishes correction officers from other law enforcement personnel, highlighting their reduced exposure to drugs within a controlled environment, which lessens the justification for random testing. The opinion concludes that there is no legal precedent in New York for the proposed blanket random drug-screening program for all correction officers.

Drug TestingUrinalysisFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsPublic EmployeesCorrectional OfficersPolice PowersConstitutional ScrutinyReasonable SuspicionNew York Court of Appeals Precedent
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,909 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