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
Sep 01, 1994

Hunt v. Hunt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two brothers, Donald and Edward G. Hunt, over the ownership of Hunt Brothers Contractors, Inc. Donald commenced an action claiming 50% shareholder ownership in the corporation and seeking an accounting, which Edward denied. Edward counter-sued for money damages, alleging Donald improperly withdrew funds from joint bank accounts. The Supreme Court dismissed Donald's claim and ruled in favor of Edward in the second action. Donald appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found that Donald failed to prove his 50% ownership claim by a preponderance of the evidence, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of capital contribution. The appellate court also deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, and Donald abandoned his appeal regarding the damages awarded to Edward.

Shareholder disputeCorporate ownershipFamily business disputeEvidentiary burdenCredibility assessmentAppellate reviewJoint bank accountsBusiness assetsStock ownershipCorporate records
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camotex, S.R.L. v. Hunt

Camotex, S.R.L. sued Lamar Hunt, Bache, and Merrill Lynch, alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the silver commodities markets in 1980. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was time-barred because Camotex's cause of action arose no later than May 1980. Camotex countered that the brokers' role was fraudulently concealed, invoking equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The court examined whether public information before May 1980 provided sufficient notice to Camotex of the brokers' involvement. It found that early press accounts did not suggest an unusual role for the brokers beyond large-scale ordinary services. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that insufficient information was available to trigger the statute of limitations before May 1980.

Market ManipulationSilver CommoditiesStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFraudulent ConcealmentSummary Judgment MotionBroker InvolvementNotice RequirementDue DiligenceConspiracy Allegations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Hunt

Nassau Educators Federal Credit Union (NEFCU) moved for relief from the automatic stay to set off outstanding loan balances against deposits in the co-debtors' share accounts, citing New York State Debtor and Creditor Law § 151. The co-debtors, William E. Hunt and Ernelle Hunt, argued that these funds, derived from their pensions, were exempt under New York City Administrative Code §§ 13-312 and 13-375 and NYDCL § 282, and that NEFCU's administrative freeze violated the automatic stay. The court denied NEFCU's motion, ruling that New York's exemption statutes for pension funds should be broadly interpreted to protect the proceeds from 'any other process,' including setoff, to prevent the exemptions from becoming a nullity. Consequently, the court ordered NEFCU to remove the administrative freeze and permit the co-debtors to access their funds.

Automatic StaySetoff RightsPension ExemptionsBankruptcy Chapter 7Debtor ProtectionStatutory InterpretationCreditor's ClaimsNew York State LawAdministrative FreezeEquitable Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stetka v. Hunt Real Estate Corp.

Plaintiff Mary Lou Stetka initially filed a pro se action, later amended with counsel, alleging sex discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law against Hunt Real Estate. Defendant Hunt Real Estate moved for summary judgment, contending that Stetka was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus not covered by these employment discrimination statutes. The court applied the common law agency test, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, and tax treatment. The court found that Stetka, a licensed real estate agent, worked autonomously, set her own hours, developed her own business, and received commissions without employee benefits or tax deductions, concluding she was an independent contractor. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for Hunt Real Estate on the federal claim and dismissed the pendent state claim due to lack of original jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentCommon Law Agency TestReal Estate IndustrySexual Harassment ClaimPendent Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Hunts Point Cooperative Market, Inc.

A warehouse worker (Plaintiff) employed by Nebraskaland sustained injuries when a steel wheel and hook, along with frozen goat carcasses, dislodged from an overhead rail system. The Plaintiff sued Hunts Point, the out-of-possession landlord, alleging a defective rail, and LML, a freight transporter, for allegedly overloading the hooks. The Supreme Court in Bronx County initially granted Hunts Point's motion for summary judgment but denied LML's. This appellate court unanimously affirmed that decision. It found that Plaintiff failed to rebut Hunts Point's prima facie showing of no actual or constructive notice regarding the alleged rail defect. However, an issue of fact remained concerning LML's workers potentially creating a dangerous condition by overloading the hooks, thus justifying the denial of LML's summary judgment motion.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligenceConstructive NoticeActual NoticeOut-of-Possession LandlordHearsayAppellate ReviewWorker InjuryWarehouse Safety
References
8
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. 1430/93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 1995

People v. Hunts

This opinion addresses a legal issue in a criminal trial involving enterprise corruption, scheme to defraud, grand larceny, and Martin Act violations against former Oxford Capital Securities, Inc. employees Hunte, Robinson, and Dowling. A key cooperating witness, Leonard Donner, asserted attorney-client privilege when questioned about his awareness of potential penalties he faced if he hadn't accepted a cooperation agreement. The court, presided over by Justice Colleen McMahon, ruled that the defendants' Sixth Amendment right of confrontation outweighs Donner's attorney-client privilege. The judge found that Donner's motive to falsify testimony was not a collateral matter and was crucial to the defense. Therefore, Donner was compelled to answer questions regarding his knowledge of the penalties, overriding his privilege.

Enterprise CorruptionAttorney-Client PrivilegeSixth Amendment Right of ConfrontationCooperating WitnessMotive to Falsify TestimonyWaiver of PrivilegePublic PolicyCriminal ProcedurePlea AgreementWitness Impeachment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keenan v. Jones

Paul D. Keenan and Nora Keenan filed a complaint against Melvin Jones and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., alleging negligence caused Keenan's workplace injuries. Defendants then filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnity or contribution from Silo, Inc., Keenan's employer. During the proceedings, the New York Legislature enacted the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996, which largely eliminated employer liability for contribution or indemnity. Silo, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment, arguing the Omnibus Act should apply retroactively to bar the claim. The court denied Silo's motion, concluding that New York courts consistently hold the Omnibus Act applies prospectively only and does not affect pending cases.

Workers' Compensation Reform ActOmnibus ActRetroactive ApplicationProspective ApplicationSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ClaimIndemnityContributionEmployer LiabilityNew York Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ10317610, ADJ10435596
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

BILL COATS vs. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration in a case involving Bill Coats against J.B. Hunt Transport and American International Group. The Board adopted the WCJ's report for denying reconsideration. However, the Board clarified that while an attorney disbarred or suspended from practice cannot represent a party, this rule does not prevent such an attorney from appearing before the Board on their own behalf. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was ultimately denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportattorney eligibilitydisbarmentsuspensioninvoluntary inactive enrollmentSupreme Court orderAppeals Board rulerepresentative of party
References
0
Case No. ADJ1699994 (LAO 0748438)
Regular
Aug 24, 2011

JOSE L. MACIAS vs. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (Chartis) against Jose L. Macias. The employer sought removal, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) violated their due process by setting the case for trial before completing discovery. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding removal to be an extraordinary remedy not warranted here as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown. The WCJ noted the employer's delay in pursuing discovery and failure to object to the applicant's readiness to proceed, deferring discovery rulings to the trial judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDue ProcessDiscoveryHome Health CareStipulations with Request for AwardPermanently Totally DisabledMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code §5310
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 37 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