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. ADJ9896370
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

GUILLERMO RESTREPO vs. SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ALPHA FUND

The applicant sought compensation for an industrial injury sustained in a car accident while commuting to work, arguing it fell under exceptions to the going and coming rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of the claim. The WCAB found the applicant's testimony regarding the necessity of using his personal vehicle for work-related tasks lacked credibility. Crucially, the evidence did not establish that the employer expressly or impliedly required the applicant to use his vehicle or that such use was a custom and practice relied upon by the employer.

Going and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJDirector of Environmental ServicesMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment ContractJob Duties
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06459
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2019

Vega v. CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC

Plaintiff Irma Vega sued CM and Associates Construction Management, LLC, alleging that she was employed as a manual laborer and was paid biweekly instead of weekly, violating Labor Law § 191 (1) (a). She sought liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Law § 198 (1-a). The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. The court clarified that Labor Law § 198 (1-a) provides remedies for untimely payment of wages, encompassing situations where frequency requirements are violated, even if all wages are eventually paid before an action commences. It further affirmed that a private right of action is expressly provided and, in the alternative, implied for violations of Labor Law § 191, thus rejecting the defendant's arguments against such claims.

Wage claimsManual laborerBiweekly paymentWeekly payment requirementLiquidated damagesLabor Law violationsPrivate right of actionUnderpayment definitionTimely wage paymentEmployer obligations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1996

City of New York v. Job-Lot Pushcart

This case addresses whether New York City's Administrative Code § 10-131 (g), which imposes strict regulations on the sale and use of toy guns, is preempted by the 1988 Federal Toy Gun Law (15 USC § 5001). The City initiated an action against defendants, including JA-RU, Inc., for distributing toy guns that violated the local ordinance's color, trade name, and barrel plug requirements. Defendants argued that the Federal law, which sets its own marking standards, preempted the City's stricter regulations. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' denial of preemption, ruling that Congress did not intend to expressly or impliedly preempt all local regulation of toy gun markings. The Court found that the Federal law's preemption clause is limited, and that compliance with both Federal and City regulations is possible and aligns with the public safety objectives of both statutes, as the City's law is not inconsistent with the Federal statute.

PreemptionFederal LawLocal LawToy GunsAdministrative CodePublic SafetyStatutory InterpretationSupremacy ClausePolice PowersNew York City
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2004

Claim of Pache v. Aviation Volunteer Fire Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board granted benefits to the widow of a fire chief who died of a heart attack, finding an implied contract of coverage under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 30 (2) between Aviation Volunteer Fire Company and the City of New York. The City appealed, contending there was no evidence of FDNY Commissioner approval for such a contract and insufficient proof of its formation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the City Charter provisions did not exclusively assign contracting authority to the Commissioner and that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an implied-in-fact contract, partly due to the City's failure to produce a knowledgeable employee. The court declined to consider a new argument regarding General City Law § 16-a.

Implied contractVolunteer Firefighters’ Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal liabilityFatal heart attackAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationCity CharterFire DepartmentContract formation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cuff v. Gleason

The plaintiff, a former longshore industry employee, sought disability benefits from the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Pension Trust Fund and Pension Plan. The Board of Trustees denied his application, arguing he failed to meet a continuous 15-year service requirement immediately preceding his application, due to a break in employment. The plaintiff contended the plan's Article III, Section 7, contained no such condition. The district court found the Board's interpretation arbitrary and capricious, ruling that the section was clear and did not imply the additional requirement. The court concluded the plaintiff had a vested right to the pension, granting his motion and denying the defendant's.

Pension PlanDisability BenefitsLongshore IndustryTaft-Hartley ActBoard of TrusteesArbitrary and CapriciousVesting RightsContinuous ServicePlan InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local Union 1566, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. appealed an order dated December 18, 1985, from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted the petitioner union's application to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from the employer's disability payment procedure requiring employees to submit claims for statutory benefits to qualify for sick-leave payments, a policy the union grieved. The arbitration board denied the grievance, interpreting the collective bargaining agreement to support the employer's procedure. However, the Supreme Court vacated the award, finding the board exceeded its authority by modifying the contract. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the arbitration board indeed exceeded its expressly limited powers by effectively rewriting the collective bargaining agreement, which contained no provision requiring employees to submit statutory disability claims for sick-leave benefits.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSick Leave BenefitsDisability Benefits LawVacatur of Arbitration AwardArbitrator AuthorityContract InterpretationNew York LawAppellate ProcedureEmployer Policy
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,354 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