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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07468
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

People v. Ultimate Homes, Inc.

Guy Poulin, a drywall installer, was injured after falling through an unguarded stairwell opening at a residential construction site. He and his wife sued the general contractor, Ultimate Homes, Inc., among others, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order, which had denied Ultimate's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims and its cross-claim for indemnification, was appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on Labor Law § 240(1) against Ultimate. The court granted Ultimate's motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, finding the accident arose from the method of work and Ultimate lacked supervisory control. Additionally, Ultimate's cross-claim for common-law indemnification against J.G. Fortin Drywall, Inc. was granted, and the lower court's sua sponte dismissal of Ultimate's cross-claims was reversed.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceIndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary judgmentAppellate Division
References
50
Case No. 2013-1470 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Ultimate Health Products, Inc., as assignee of Paul Luckner, against Hereford Insurance Co. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, had previously denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The defendant successfully argued that the policy in question was a workers' compensation insurance policy, not an automobile insurance policy, thus establishing a lack of coverage for no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's order, reiterating that a lack of coverage defense is not precluded by issues of propriety or timeliness of a denial of claim form.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation PolicyAutomobile InsuranceSummary JudgmentLack of Coverage DefenseAppellate ReviewAssigned BenefitsInsurance Policy InterpretationCivil Court OrderFirst-Party Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. LYN-ROG INC.

Plaintiffs, a group of car laborers, initiated a collective action against Lyn-Rog Inc. d/b/a The Ultimate Car Wash and Roger Lenza, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification of the collective action, requesting disclosure of potential class members' contact information and authorization to distribute a notice. Defendants opposed, citing individual defenses and arguing the employees were not 'similarly situated.' The U.S. Magistrate Judge, A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding they met the lenient standard for conditional certification by demonstrating a common policy violating labor laws. The court also ordered the defendants to produce contact information for employees dating back six years, aligning with state law claims for judicial economy, and approved the proposed notice.

FLSAOvertime PayCollective ActionConditional CertificationUnpaid WagesLabor LawNew York State Labor LawCar Wash IndustryWage and HourClass Action
References
21
Case No. ADJ1883473
Regular
Dec 14, 2018

JOSE MANUEL SALDIVAR vs. REUEL SARABIA CIPRIANO, dba GENESIS GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR, INC., ALEXANDER LEIGH, DAVID LEIGH, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior findings and substituted new ones, determining Alexander Leigh was the employer of Jose Manuel Saldivar. The Board found that the unlicensed and uninsured contractor, Reuel Sarabia Cipriano, was acting as an employee of the property owner, Alexander Leigh, as a matter of law, due to Cipriano's failure to maintain a valid contractor's license and workers' compensation insurance. The WCAB specifically rejected the argument that Cipriano's alleged misrepresentations to the property owner estopped the injured worker or the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) from establishing Leigh as the employer. Therefore, the WCAB ordered that Leigh, as the ultimate hirer, was legally responsible for Saldivar's industrial injury.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fundillegally uninsuredunlicensed contractorultimate hireremployee statusindependent contractorestoppeldue processcross-examinationDeclaration of David Leigh
References
15
Case No. ADJ4593512 (AHM077352)
Regular
Jul 12, 2010

FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ vs. DOUGLAS FURNITURE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE

The WCAB granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration to address its contention that the administrative law judge (WCJ) erred in finding a medical lien constituted a "covered claim" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c). Although the WCJ ultimately disallowed the lien because its reasonable value had been paid, CIGA argued that the "covered claim" finding created potential collateral estoppel issues. Finding these findings irrelevant to the ultimate resolution, the WCAB amended the original order to delete the specific findings regarding the "covered claim" status. The WCAB affirmed the disallowance of the remaining lien balance.

CIGACalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReconsiderationLien ClaimCovered ClaimInsurance Code § 1063.1(c)Findings and OrderWCJTorrance Memorial Medical CenterAssignment for Collection
References
0
Case No. ADJ10810340
Regular
Jan 04, 2018

DUSTIN RAMIREZ vs. VIASYSTEMS/TTM TECHNOLOGIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration by the defendant, Viasystems/TTM Technologies, challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ's decision addressed statute of limitations, lack of prejudice, and date of injury, but not the ultimate issue of whether the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board denied the petition because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision on AOE/COE. While the Board agreed that the WCJ's findings on the statute of limitations, notice, and date of injury were appealable, it ultimately denied reconsideration based on the WCJ's report, which found that the record required further development on the crucial AOE/COE issue.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionWCJ ReportFinal OrderSubstantive RightsThreshold IssueStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Date of Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2000

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.

Stephenson Equity Company (SECO), a plaintiff-intervenor, moved to compel non-party Swiss American Securities Inc. (SASI) to produce documents related to a pooled omnibus account held by Credit Suisse (Zurich) at SASI, believing these documents would identify beneficial owners, specifically Credit Bancorp. SASI opposed, arguing it lacked control over such specific information as broker-dealer regulations do not mandate identifying ultimate beneficial owners in pooled corporate accounts, and also referencing Swiss bank privacy laws. The court ultimately denied SECO's motion, concluding that SECO failed to demonstrate that SASI had the requisite control or access to the Credit Bancorp-specific documents in the ordinary course of business.

Discovery motionMotion to compelRule 45 FRCPSubpoena duces tecumBroker-dealer regulationsOmnibus accountsBeneficial ownershipCorporate controlSister corporationsSecurities law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesolek v. Jumping Cow Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order that had granted summary judgment to the defendants in a personal injury action. The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping and falling in a wet basement at his workplace. The appellate court modified the lower court's order by denying summary judgment for Calumet Properties, Inc. (building owner) and Ultimate Restaurants, Inc. (employer), thereby reinstating the amended complaint against those defendants. The court found that the defendants failed to establish a lack of actual or constructive notice regarding a recurring dangerous condition (water in the basement). However, the dismissal of the complaint against Steve Calvaneso, the sole shareholder and director of Ultimate, was affirmed, upholding that a corporate officer is not liable for the corporation's negligence merely due to their official relationship.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeRecurrent Dangerous ConditionCorporate Officer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ClaimErie County
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Schomber v. Schomber

This case concerns a postjudgment application for a change of custody which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. The remaining issues for the court were the award and apportionment of counsel and expert fees. The court reviewed the affidavits of legal services and net worth statements from both the plaintiff and defendant, noting the defendant's superior earning capacity. It also addressed the fees for the Law Guardian and a forensic expert, whose qualifications were challenged by the plaintiff. The court affirmed the expert's role and fees, stating that licensure is not a prerequisite for court-appointed experts in this context. Ultimately, the court ordered the apportionment of legal, Law Guardian, and forensic expert fees between the parties, with the defendant responsible for 80% and the plaintiff for 20% of the expert and Law Guardian fees, based on their respective financial circumstances.

custody disputechild supportlegal feesexpert witness feesLaw Guardian feespostjudgment applicationmatrimonial lawfee apportionmentfinancial disclosureSuffolk Academy of Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Public Employment Relations Board v. Board of Education

The concurring opinion, authored by Judge Fuchsberg, affirms the ultimate disposition of the case, upholding the Public Employment Relations Board's (PERB) order. The opinion delves into the critical distinction between an administrative agency exceeding its jurisdiction and merely committing an error of law. It argues that an order issued without statutory power or in excess thereof is inherently void and subject to collateral attack, even if statutory time limits for direct review have passed. Judge Fuchsberg supports this jurisdictional argument by referencing several prior cases, including *Matter of Foy v Schechter* and *Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Bohlinger*. Ultimately, the opinion concludes that the PERB's remedial orders were fully authorized due to a specific statutory violation, despite the complex jurisdictional challenges raised.

Public Employment Relations BoardAdministrative LawJurisdictionCollateral AttackStatutory InterpretationError of LawBack PayCivil Service LawArticle 78PERB
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,376 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