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

Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

Claimant initiated a workers' compensation case, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding an employer-employee relationship with Executive Charge/Love Taxi. This finding was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which rejected the independent contractor argument. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed this interlocutory decision. The appellate court, citing precedent from *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*, determined that the Board's ruling on employment status was not a final or 'threshold legal issue' warranting immediate review. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the policy against piecemeal review of substantive issues in compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPiecemeal ReviewBoard DecisionDismissed AppealWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holland Laundry, Inc. v. Simon

This case concerns an action brought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendants from pursuing certain charges before the State Labor Board. The court considered the respondent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The order granting this motion was affirmed. No opinion was provided for this decision, with Presiding Justice Lazansky, along with Justices Carswell, Johnston, Taylor, and Close, concurring.

InjunctionLabor LawMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAffirmedCourt OrderConcurring Justices
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1998

Devlin v. City of New York

This personal injury action was brought by plaintiffs, including Claire Devlin, against Charge A Ride and Car Company, Inc., and individual drivers, following an accident involving two Charge A Ride cars. Charge A Ride sought summary judgment, arguing its drivers were independent contractors and it lacked vicarious liability. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The court found that a question of fact existed regarding the nature of the relationship, citing factors indicative of Charge A Ride's control over its drivers. A dissenting opinion argued insufficient control for an employer-employee relationship, but the majority emphasized that the issue, including whether Charge A Ride presented itself as the employer, should be resolved by a jury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryCar Dispatch CompanyControl TestAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorkers' Compensation
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01123
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Kohn v. County of Sullivan

Burt Kohn, an administrator for the Sullivan County Adult Care Center, was terminated following a disciplinary hearing based on charges of misconduct and incompetence. The charges stemmed from allegations that he suggested a subordinate share login credentials for a CDC database and asked staff to volunteer to test positive for COVID-19. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the determination by annulling two charges related to 'directing' password sharing, finding only a 'suggestion' was made. However, it sustained charges of misconduct and incompetence for the suggestion itself, noting potential penalties for non-compliance with rules, and upheld charges regarding his inappropriate COVID-19 remarks. The court ultimately affirmed the termination penalty, deeming it proportionate given his role during the pandemic.

Civil Service LawMisconduct ChargesIncompetence ChargesEmployment TerminationDisciplinary ProceedingsSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue ProcessPassword Sharing ProhibitionCOVID-19 ReportingNursing Home Administration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horton v. Ames

The petitioner, an architectural draftsman for the Department of Buildings and Grounds of Suffolk County, challenged his dismissal following charges of incompetence, leave policy violation, and disruptive conduct under Civil Service Law section 75. Despite a hearing officer's recommendation to dismiss all charges, the respondent Commissioner found him guilty of most charges and reaffirmed his dismissal. The court, in this Article 78 proceeding, annulled the determination regarding Charges Nos. 2 and 3, citing lack of substantial evidence. Furthermore, the court found the commissioner's decision-making process biased due to his adversarial stance towards the hearing officer and his reaction to the petitioner's request for counsel. The case was remitted for a new determination by a deputy commissioner, limited to the remaining specifications of Charge No. 1.

CPLR Article 78Civil Service LawAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessBiasRemittiturPublic Employment DismissalHearing Officer Report
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of the Unadilla Valley Central School District & McGowan

A tenured teacher, previously investigated for sexual harassment, underwent a psychiatric examination per an agreement with the petitioner (school district) to avoid initial disciplinary charges. Based on a psychiatrist's tentative diagnosis of personality and adjustment disorders, the petitioner filed a charge alleging mental disability rendering the teacher unfit to teach. Conflicting medical expert testimonies were presented, with the Hearing Officer ultimately dismissing the charge, finding the petitioner failed to prove mental disability. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division affirmed the arbitration award, concluding that the Hearing Officer's determination had evidentiary support, was not arbitrary or capricious, and did not violate public policy, upholding the dismissal of the charge against the teacher. The agreement had explicitly waived the right to bring charges related to the initial investigation.

Teacher disciplineMental health evaluationEducation lawArbitration reviewFitness for dutySexual harassment allegationsPersonality disorderDue process rightsSchool administrationAppellate review
References
8
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
Showing 1-10 of 924 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