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. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2004

In re the Claim of Teitelbaum

This case concerns an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, an account executive for an employer whose products were sold at airport duty-free shops, was terminated after September 11, 2001, due to business decline. She applied for extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. Although initially granted by an Administrative Law Judge, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding the employer was neither a supplier nor an upstream producer for an airline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the connection between the employer's products and the airline industry was too tenuous to qualify the claimant for extended benefits under TEUC-A, and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-ADisplaced WorkersAirline IndustrySupplier DefinitionEligibilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Claim of Chee

The claimant was laid off in March 1999 and began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In July 1999, the employer offered to rehire him to his previous position at the same hourly rate of $12.44. The claimant rejected this offer, leading the employer to contest his right to continued benefits. An administrative hearing and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that the claimant was entitled to continued benefits, citing Labor Law § 593 (2) (d). The Board found that the prevailing wage for similar positions in the locality was $14.88 per hour, exceeding the offered salary by more than 10%, which constituted good cause for rejecting the job offer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was rational and supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment benefitsjob refusalprevailing wagegood causeLabor Lawadministrative appealsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewreemploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1974

In re Claim of Di Lella

This case is an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which denied unemployment insurance benefits to "outside" liquor and wine salesmen. The claimants, members of their respective salesmen's unions, lost their employment when other unions (Teamsters and Distillery Workers) went on strike against their common employers, wholesale liquor and wine distributors. The employers ceased operations, instructing the salesmen not to report to work. The Board determined that the claimants lost their jobs due to an industrial controversy in the same "establishment" as the striking employees, as per Labor Law § 592(1). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that despite working remotely, the salesmen's operational ties to the employer's physical premises constituted employment within the same establishment.

Unemployment Insurance AppealIndustrial ControversyStrike Suspension of BenefitsSame Establishment TestLiquor SalesmenAppellate DivisionLabor Law § 592(1)Unemployment Benefits DenialPicket LinesSalesmen Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1997

In re the Claim of Schembri

The claimant, a manager at a coffee shop restaurant, was discharged following a confrontation with her supervisor. The supervisor alleged the claimant became very upset and yelled at her in the presence of customers and later in the back room. A co-worker corroborated the supervisor's account. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant's conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's findings and noting that the claimant's denial of raising her voice presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductTermination of EmploymentSupervisor ConfrontationCredibility IssueWorkplace DisputeAppeal Board DecisionAdministrative LawEmployment LawManagerial Misconduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1993

In re the Claim of Regan

The claimant was discharged from their position as a loader at a beverage plant due to insubordination and argumentative conduct with supervisors on multiple occasions. Subsequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied the claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits, concluding that the termination resulted from misconduct. The claimant appealed this decision, asserting that the Board erroneously relied on the factual findings from an arbitration award and that they were not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the discharge issue. The court found no merit in the claimant's arguments, noting that the same claims were previously raised and rejected in prior federal litigation concerning the arbitration award. Consequently, the Board's decision, which was supported by the arbitrator's findings of willful misconduct, was affirmed based on the principle of collateral estoppel.

MisconductInsubordinationUnemployment BenefitsArbitrationCollateral EstoppelJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeDue ProcessEmployment TerminationAdministrative Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Jolly

The claimant, who lost a job with the City of New York under nondisqualifying conditions, subsequently took a lower-paying sales and clerical position. Upon discovering the newly enacted Special Unemployment Assistance Program, which retroactively covered municipal employees, she voluntarily quit her clerical job solely to collect unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed a referee's decision and disqualified the claimant. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that unemployment insurance is intended for involuntary unemployment due to economic conditions beyond an employee's control, not for individuals who voluntarily leave employment without good cause to collect benefits.

unemployment insurancevoluntary quitgood causeSpecial Unemployment Assistance Programbenefits denialretroactive coverageappellate decisioneligibility
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Warnock

The claimant was terminated after an altercation with a co-worker, but eyewitnesses testified that no threats or physical contact occurred, and the co-worker was the one who became angry. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, finding that the actions did not constitute misconduct. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that displaying bad judgment does not automatically disqualify a claimant from benefits.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductSubstantial evidenceAltercationCo-worker disputeAppellate reviewAppeal Board decisionEmployee terminationBad judgmentNo physical contact
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 571 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