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. 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. 2018 NY Slip Op 02766 [160 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Clarke v. First Student, Inc.

Ibia M. Clarke, an employee of First Student Management, LLC (FSM), sustained personal injuries due to a defective condition at FSM's premises. She subsequently filed a negligence action against First Student, Inc., the premises owner. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of FSM, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, FSM. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAlter Ego DoctrineEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewCorporate Structure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 1965

State Commission for Human Rights v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal by the appellants (a union) from a court order dated July 26, 1965. The order sought to enforce a directive from the State Commission for Human Rights, compelling the parties to cease and desist from discriminating against Negroes in the selection of sheet metal apprentices and to establish a new class of 65 apprentices. The appellants contested the court's authority to dictate the number of apprentices, arguing it infringed on arbitration agreements. The court, however, affirmed the order, finding that all parties had previously agreed to the formation of two classes, each consisting of 65 apprentices, as part of measures to discontinue discriminatory practices. The decision emphasized that the court acted within its jurisdiction to enforce the commission's order, especially given the prior agreement.

DiscriminationHuman RightsApprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawCourt Order EnforcementArbitration AgreementsJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtNew York State LawCivil Rights Enforcement
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01897 [215 AD3d 751]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Matter of Podell v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment

The petitioner, Kate Podell, sought to challenge an "indicated" report of child maltreatment filed against her with the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. The report alleged that while working at a day care, Podell left a 22-month-old child unsupervised on a playground. After the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) denied her application to amend and seal the report, Podell initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for review. The Appellate Division ultimately confirmed OCFS's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseCentral RegisterFair HearingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceDay Care WorkerUnsupervised ChildAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Student Loan Corp.

Lead plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Elk-horn Partners LP brought a putative class action against Student Loan Corporation, its officers, Citigroup, Citibank, Citi Holdings, and Discover Financial Services. Plaintiffs alleged that Student Loan Corp. violated GAAP by failing to maintain adequate reserves for student loan losses and materially misrepresented its loan portfolios and risk exposure in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, and loss causation. The Court also noted that the named plaintiffs lacked standing due to a prior settlement order in a related Delaware action.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissGAAP ViolationsLoan Loss ReservesFinancial DisclosuresPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActScienterLoss CausationCorporate Governance
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, District Council No. 4 ex rel. Stevens v. New York State Department of Labor

Justice Whalen dissents from the majority's interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e), which governs apprentice wages on public works projects. The dissent argues that the defendants' interpretation, which is aligned with the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) stance, is supported by the statute's language and intent to prevent subversion of prevailing wage laws. Justice Whalen asserts that apprentices should only be paid at the lower apprentice rate when performing work within their registered trade classification. If an employee works outside their designated apprenticeship trade, they are entitled to the full journey-level wage for the work actually performed. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that the DOL's interpretation, given its role in implementing and enforcing prevailing wage and apprenticeship standards, warrants judicial deference as it is rational and consistent with the statute's plain meaning. Justice Whalen would have affirmed the lower court's order and judgment that favored the defendants by granting their motion for a declaratory judgment and denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Labor LawApprenticeship ProgramsPrevailing WagePublic WorksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceNew York Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 371 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