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

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05182 [208 AD3d 1211]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2022

Zhiying Wang v. Bin Wu

In this case, the plaintiff, Zhiying Wang, a former live-in nanny and housekeeper, sued defendants Bin Wu et al. alleging violations of Labor Law article 6 and the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights. The defendants appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing they did not reside at the Syosset property where service was made. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the process server's affidavits established prima facie evidence of proper service. The defendants' denials were deemed conclusory and insufficient to rebut the presumption, especially since their children lived at the Syosset property, which the court determined to be their 'dwelling place or usual place of abode' for service purposes.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessDomestic WorkersNannyHousekeeperAppellate ReviewAffidavit of ServiceUsual Place of AbodeLabor Law ComplianceNew York Courts
References
12
Case No. ADJ3856430 (LAO 0853077)
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

XIAO BIN ZHOU vs. EASTCOM, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses Xiao Bin Zhou's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The dismissal is based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the reconsideration request. The original decision dates were August 11, 2010, and/or November 1, 2010.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawnDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCase No. ADJ3856430LAO 0853077Xiao Bin ZhouEastcom Inc.Employers Compensation Insurance CompanyAugust 11 2010
References
0
Case No. 12 Civ. 8456
Regular Panel Decision

Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Plaintiffs, including Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. and Micah Z. Kellner, challenged the construction of the 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in New York City. They alleged that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) improperly issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit by failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consider alternatives, or sufficiently address impacts after Superstorm Sandy. Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed the City of New York and its Department of Sanitation denied them equal protection, and Asphalt Green Inc. alleged breach of contract, trespass, and private nuisance. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, affirming that the Corps’ permit issuance was rational, its environmental review was adequate, and its considerations of alternatives, mitigation, and post-Sandy impacts were sufficient. All of Plaintiffs' claims, including constitutional and state law claims, were dismissed with prejudice.

Environmental LawClean Water Act (CWA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Waste ManagementMarine Transfer StationJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Summary JudgmentFlood RiskSuperstorm Sandy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moss

Defendant Robert Moss, charged with methamphetamine offenses, moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He claimed the search warrant was based on evidence from illegal trash searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Bryan Harris conducted multiple trash searches after an anonymous tip, finding items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. The court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the principles established in *Katz v. United States* and *California v. Greenwood* regarding the expectation of privacy in discarded trash. The motion was denied, as the court ruled that individuals lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in trash once it is placed for collection at the designated time, regardless of its location within the curtilage.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressTrash SearchExpectation of PrivacyCurtilageAbandoned PropertyCriminal ProcedureMethamphetamineDrug Offenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Miller

This is a Worker's Compensation case where Texas Employers Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed an award of death benefits to Margaret Louise Miller, the surviving beneficiary of Morris Lee Miller. Morris Miller, employed by the Florence Drane Estate, died on December 18, 1976, after being found burned in a trash pit on the property where his routine duties included burning trash. T.E.I.A. disputed whether Mr. Miller was an 'employee' at the time of his death and if his death resulted from an injury in the course and scope of his employment. A jury found in favor of Mrs. Miller, and the trial court entered judgment for maximum death benefits and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling all of T.E.I.A.'s points of error.

Worker's CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentAverage Weekly WageLump Sum Attorney's FeesJury MisconductTexas Civil StatutesIndustrial Accident BoardEmployer LiabilityBeneficiary Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2013

Humareda v. 500A East 87th Street, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Humareda sustained a right hand injury while attempting to unclog a malfunctioning trash compactor at his workplace. He initiated a lawsuit against the building owner, 500A East 87th Street, LLC, and related entities, Garson Holdings, LLC, and Garson Management Company, LLC. The court determined that these defendants, as out-of-possession owners, were not liable because the defect was not a significant structural or design flaw violating a specific safety statute, and the net lessee had ample time to address it. However, a factual dispute arose regarding the liability of S. Garson, LLC, due to counsel's admission of control over the trash compactor and ambiguity concerning management responsibilities. The defendants' argument that the plaintiff's action constituted a superseding cause was dismissed, as the long-standing practice of using sticks to clear the compactor made his conduct foreseeable, albeit raising an issue of comparative negligence.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession OwnerTrash Compactor AccidentCorporate Veil PiercingLimited Liability Company LawSuperseding CauseComparative NegligenceUnforeseeable ConductManaging Agent Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA), sustained injuries after falling through a hole in an apartment floor while removing trash. BMHA had contracted Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., operating as Spectra Contract Flooring, for flooring work, who in turn subcontracted Gregory Simmons, doing business as Simmons Flooring and Remodeling. After the kitchen floor was noted as "spongy," Simmons cut out portions, creating the hole. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. However, the appellate court modified this by denying those parts of the motions and reinstating the claims, finding defendants failed to establish they did not supervise the work, control the premises, or create/have notice of the dangerous condition. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the plaintiff's trash removal duties were not connected to construction activities as defined by that statute. The order was thus modified and affirmed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Claim of Bin Wang v. De Ding Zheng

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the employer’s application for review was untimely. The claimant, a delivery person, suffered work-related injuries, leading to a WCLJ decision awarding benefits and imposing a penalty on the uninsured employer. The employer filed multiple applications for Board review, including one for rehearing/reopening. The Board denied these applications primarily on timeliness grounds. The appellate court reversed and remitted the matter, finding that the Board did not fully consider all of the employer’s applications and overlooked one request. The court instructed the Board to address specific arguments regarding reopening the claim under 12 NYCRR 300.14 upon remittal.

Workers' Compensation BoardUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorWorkers' Compensation LawIndependent Medical ExpertEmployer ApplicationReopening ClaimAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2009

Bin Gu v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee, was injured after falling from a ladder placed on a scaffold during a construction project. He filed an action against the property owners, lessees, and contractors under Labor Law § 240 (1) for personal injuries. The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants and a third-party defendant raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as evidence suggested the provided scaffold was safe and adequate for the work.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentProximate CauseConstruction AccidentWorker SafetyElevation-Related HazardsAppellate Division
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 57 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