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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00502 [234 AD3d 1215]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Matter of Ito (International Business Promotion, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Eriko Ito filed for unemployment insurance benefits after her employment with NHK Cosmomedia America, Inc. was terminated. The Department of Labor initially determined that International Business Promotion, Inc. (IBP), a recruiting and marketing company that placed Ito with NHK, was her employer and liable for unemployment insurance contributions. Although an Administrative Law Judge later ruled NHK was the true employer, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this, finding IBP to be Ito's employer. IBP appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that IBP exercised sufficient control over Ito's work, including screening, hiring, setting pay rates, direct payment, and handling complaints, to establish an employment relationship.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorStaffing AgencyRecruiting BusinessControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawJudiciary Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haufler v. Cambrook Fabrics Co.

An outside salesman in New York City was injured when he tripped entering a cafeteria for lunch while on his way to a client. The employer and carrier appealed a decision awarding benefits, arguing the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The board found no departure from employment, considering it a reasonable incident for an outside worker. The court, citing Matter of Relkin v. National Transp. Co., affirmed the decision, concluding the meal was sufficiently related to the time and place of work and the promotion of the employer’s business.

Workers' CompensationOutside SalesmanCourse of EmploymentMealtime InjuryAppellate DivisionAccident Arising Out of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentWork-Related IncidentEmployer LiabilityAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banner Employment Agency, Inc. v. O'Connell

This case concerns the annulment of a respondent's determination that a petitioner employment agency violated Section 185 of the General Business Law by charging an excessive fee. The dispute centered on the classification of an employee for fee calculation, with the respondent advocating for 'Class A1' and the petitioner for 'Class B'. The employee possessed an engineering background and technical experience. The court concluded that the employment did not fit into 'Class A1' or the professional aspect of 'Class B', instead falling under 'Class B's' residual 'other employment' category. Consequently, the respondent's initial determination was annulled.

Employment Agency FeesGeneral Business LawEmployment ClassificationStatutory InterpretationExcessive ChargeJudicial ReviewAnnulmentSkilled WorkerNon-Professional EmploymentClass B Employment
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1984

Claim of Weimer v. Wei-Munch Ltd.

The claimant, employed as a food service director, sustained injuries and his wife was killed in a car accident while driving home from his second job as a restaurant manager. He was traveling to his home, which served as the corporate office for his restaurant business, with business materials in his briefcase. An Administrative Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injuries compensable, ruling that his home constituted a second business location. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the accident occurred during an uncompensable commute. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that an accident between work and home is compensable if the home has genuinely become part of the employment premises due to work duties.

Work-related injuryHome officeTraveling employeeDual employmentSpecial errandCourse of employmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewAccident during commuteCompensable injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This case involves five pro se plaintiffs who filed a complaint against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), alleging constructive discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). IBM sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing charges with the EEOC. The court found that Kamalakar V. Narsule and Stephen M. Zick had not filed EEOC charges, leading to the dismissal of their claims. Erach Maneska Singpurwala's claim was dismissed due to untimeliness and issue preclusion, as he had previously sued IBM on the same facts. Michael John Shelpack's claim was also dismissed as untimely, having filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after his employment ended. Lastly, Peter J. Murphy's claim was dismissed because he had signed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue IBM for age discrimination, accepting a severance package. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against IBM for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEEOCRight to Sue LetterUntimely FilingWaiver of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActRes Judicata
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1972

Claim of McGee v. Allstate Insurance

The claimant's husband, a District Sales Manager for Allstate Insurance Company, died in a car accident on September 30, 1970, after attending a sales meeting and continuing business discussions at bars. Although his home was in Utica, the accident occurred en route from Rome. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found the decedent was an outside worker and in the course of his employment at the time of death, awarding death benefits to the claimant. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, ruling that social activities connected with and incidental to an employer’s business are considered part of employment and that the decedent had not deviated from his employment.

Death BenefitsCourse of EmploymentOutside WorkerSales MeetingBusiness DiscussionCar AccidentDeviation from EmploymentAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Place v. Ryder

Claimant, who received workers' compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, settled a third-party action. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer had waived its statutory offset rights against the claimant's net recovery from the third-party action, as there was no written agreement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding that the self-insured employer had reserved its offset rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's attorney's correspondence provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that offset rights were explicitly reserved.

Workers' CompensationOffset RightsThird-Party SettlementEmployer's LienStatutory WaiverAttorney CorrespondenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,402 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