11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2025As such, and aware that the role of this Court is not to independently review and weigh the conflicting evidence to determine whether the various factors of the ABC test ( see Matter of Barrier Window Sys., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor] , 149 AD3d 1373, 1377 [3d Dept 2017]) — including who directed and controlled the work being performed in installing the trusses — were met, the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and the matter must be remitted to the Board for proper consideration of whether the ABC test was satisfied in order to rebut the presumption of an employer-empl 2025As such, and aware that the role of this Court is not to independently review and weigh the conflicting evidence to determine whether the various factors of the ABC test ( see Matter of Barrier Window Sys., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor] , 149 AD3d 1373, 1377 [3d Dept 2017]) — including who directed and controlled the work being performed in installing the trusses — were met, the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and the matter must be remitted to the Board for proper consideration of whether the ABC test was satisfied in order to rebut the presumption of an employer-empl | 2 | 3 |
In re the Claim of Jimenezgreen2 sentences2017The Board found that the first statutory criteria of the ABC test (see Labor Law § 861-c [1] [a]) was not satisfied as Barrier screened the installers, set the installation price, which was not subject to negotiation, and resolved any unexpected increases in costs with the customer (see Matter of Baez [PD 10276, Inc. — Com missioner of Labor], 143 AD3d at 1191 ; Matter of Jimenez [C & I Assoc., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d 1587, 1589-1590 [2010]; compare Matter of Holleran [Jez Enters., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 757 , 758-759 [2012]). 2017The Board found that the first statutory criteria of the ABC test (see Labor Law § 861-c [1] [a]) was not satisfied as Barrier screened the installers, set the installation price, which was not subject to negotiation, and resolved any unexpected increases in costs with the customer (see Matter of Baez [PD 10276, Inc. — Com missioner of Labor], 143 AD3d at 1191 ; Matter of Jimenez [C & I Assoc., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d 1587, 1589-1590 [2010]; compare Matter of Holleran [Jez Enters., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 757 , 758-759 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Claim of Hollerangreen2 sentences2017The Board found that the first statutory criteria of the ABC test (see Labor Law § 861-c [1] [a]) was not satisfied as Barrier screened the installers, set the installation price, which was not subject to negotiation, and resolved any unexpected increases in costs with the customer (see Matter of Baez [PD 10276, Inc. — Com missioner of Labor], 143 AD3d at 1191 ; Matter of Jimenez [C & I Assoc., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d 1587, 1589-1590 [2010]; compare Matter of Holleran [Jez Enters., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 757 , 758-759 [2012]). 2017The Board found that the first statutory criteria of the ABC test (see Labor Law § 861-c [1] [a]) was not satisfied as Barrier screened the installers, set the installation price, which was not subject to negotiation, and resolved any unexpected increases in costs with the customer (see Matter of Baez [PD 10276, Inc. — Com missioner of Labor], 143 AD3d at 1191 ; Matter of Jimenez [C & I Assoc., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d 1587, 1589-1590 [2010]; compare Matter of Holleran [Jez Enters., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 757 , 758-759 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Misicki v. Caradonnagreen2 sentences2025"As a predicate to a section 241(6) cause of action, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a concrete specification promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor promulgated in the Industrial Code" ( Simmons v City of New York , 165 AD3d at 729; see Misicki v Caradonna , 12 NY3d 511, 515 ; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. 2025"As a predicate to a section 241(6) cause of action, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a concrete specification promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor promulgated in the Industrial Code" ( Simmons v City of New York , 165 AD3d at 729; see Misicki v Caradonna , 12 NY3d 511, 515 ; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Tuerk (Adelchi Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)green2 sentences2022Having failed to satisfy the fourth statutory factor, and given that satisfaction of all 12 factors is required in order to demonstrate a separate business entity, the Board's decision will not be disturbed and, further, we need not address the parties' contentions regarding the remaining factors of the separate entity test or the ABC test addressed by the Board ( see id. at 1063; Matter of Tuerk [Adelchi Inc.-Commissioner of Labor] , 184 AD3d 295, 298-300 [2020]). 2022Having failed to satisfy the fourth statutory factor, and given that satisfaction of all 12 factors is required in order to demonstrate a separate business entity, the Board's decision will not be disturbed and, further, we need not address the parties' contentions regarding the remaining factors of the separate entity test or the ABC test addressed by the Board ( see id. at 1063; Matter of Tuerk [Adelchi Inc.-Commissioner of Labor] , 184 AD3d 295, 298-300 [2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Tomyuk v. Junefield Associategreen2 sentences2011“A subcontractor may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 . . . where it does not have authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiffs injury” (Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2008]; see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d 519, 523 [2010]; Kelarakos v Massapequa Water Dist., 38 AD3d 717, 718 [2007]). 2011Condominiums By Bay, LLC, 52 AD3d 593, 594 [2008]; see Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d at 522 ). | 1 | 1 |
Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc.green1 sentence2011“A subcontractor may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 . . . where it does not have authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiffs injury” (Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2008]; see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d 519, 523 [2010]; Kelarakos v Massapequa Water Dist., 38 AD3d 717, 718 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Kelarakos v. Massapequa Water Districtgreen1 sentence2011“A subcontractor may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 . . . where it does not have authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiffs injury” (Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2008]; see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d 519, 523 [2010]; Kelarakos v Massapequa Water Dist., 38 AD3d 717, 718 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Tabickman v. Batchelder Street Condominiums By the Bay, LLCgreen1 sentence2011Condominiums By Bay, LLC, 52 AD3d 593, 594 [2008]; see Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d at 522 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Baez (Commr. of Labor)
green
2 sentences2017The Board found that the first statutory criteria of the ABC test (see Labor Law § 861-c [1] [a]) was not satisfied as Barrier screened the installers, set the installation price, which was not subject to negotiation, and resolved any unexpected increases in costs with the customer (see Matter of Baez [PD 10276, Inc. — Com missioner of Labor], 143 AD3d at 1191 ; Matter of Jimenez [C & I Assoc., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d 1587, 1589-1590 [2010]; compare Matter of Holleran [Jez Enters., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 757 , 758-759 [2012]). 2017The Board found that the first statutory criteria of the ABC test (see Labor Law § 861-c [1] [a]) was not satisfied as Barrier screened the installers, set the installation price, which was not subject to negotiation, and resolved any unexpected increases in costs with the customer (see Matter of Baez [PD 10276, Inc. — Com missioner of Labor], 143 AD3d at 1191 ; Matter of Jimenez [C & I Assoc., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d 1587, 1589-1590 [2010]; compare Matter of Holleran [Jez Enters., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 757 , 758-759 [2012]). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Matter of Mitchell (Commr. of Labor)
green
2 sentences2017“As [it is] not the role of this Court to second-guess determinations rendered by administrative agencies or, more to the point, independently review and weigh the evidence adduced at an administrative hearing” (Matter of Mitchell [Nation Co. Ltd Partners — Commissioner of Labor], 145 AD3d at 1406 ), and in view of the requirement that all the criteria of the statutory ABC test must be met in order to rebut the presumption of employment, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed, “despite other evidence in the record that would have supp 2017“As [it is] not the role of this Court to second-guess determinations rendered by administrative agencies or, more to the point, independently review and weigh the evidence adduced at an administrative hearing” (Matter of Mitchell [Nation Co. Ltd Partners — Commissioner of Labor], 145 AD3d at 1406 ), and in view of the requirement that all the criteria of the statutory ABC test must be met in order to rebut the presumption of employment, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed, “despite other evidence in the record that would have supp | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Parrino v. Rauert
green
2 sentences2025Here, the ABC defendants and Mid-State each established, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff's injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Parrino v Rauert , 208 AD3d at 674 ; Simmons v City of New York , 165 AD3d at 727). 2025Here, the ABC defendants and Mid-State each established, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff's injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Parrino v Rauert , 208 AD3d at 674 ; Simmons v City of New York , 165 AD3d at 727). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Desena v. North Shore Hebrew Academy
green
2 sentences2025Group, LLC , 231AD3d 762; Desena v North Shore Hebrew Academy , 119 AD3d 631, 634-635 ). 2025Group, LLC , 231AD3d 762; Desena v North Shore Hebrew Academy , 119 AD3d 631, 634-635 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Goll v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010The Supreme Court properly determined that Walton was obligated to indemnify ABC for any damages awarded to the plaintiff and against ABC in the main action (see Goll v American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 10 AD3d 672 [2004]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sosnowski v. Kolovas
green
1 sentence2002The certificate of title issued by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, which listed Firstar as the owner of the bus at the time of the accident, constitutes prima facie evidence of Firstar’s ownership (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2108 [c]; Sosnowski v Kolovas, 127 AD2d 756 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gross v. Perales
green
1 sentence2002Clearly, any demand for monetary relief was wholly incidental under all the facts and issues presented in the instant matter (see, Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.