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. CV-22-2294, CV-22-2299
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Reyes Bonilla

Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, filed workers' compensation claims after being injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a job site in an employer-provided van. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed decisions that established their claims against XL Specialty Insurance, ruling that their injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge and that the injuries were compensable due to the employer's control over transportation. The court also concluded that XL Specialty's policy exclusion was inapplicable as the transportation was incidental to the project.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCourse of EmploymentEmployer Provided TransportationInsurance Coverage DisputeWrap-up PolicyAppellate ReviewPreclusionPenalties
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Manumante S.A.

Petitioner Reyes, owner of the M.V. Paean, sought to vacate or modify an arbitration award. The arbitration arose from a consolidated proceeding between Reyes, Manumante S.A., and Czarnikow-Rionda Co., Inc., concerning a loss Czarnikow sustained because the vessel failed to carry a full cargo. The arbitrators directed Reyes to pay Czarnikow directly for a stipulated loss of $27,500. Reyes argued the panel exceeded its authority, citing a lack of privity of contract with Czarnikow. The Court, however, found that a three-party submission agreement, signed by all involved parties, cured any jurisdictional defect by allowing the arbitrators to apportion liability directly. Consequently, the Court denied Reyes' petition.

ArbitrationArbitration AwardVacate AwardModify AwardConsolidated ArbitrationCharterpartyContract LawPrivity of ContractSubmission AgreementPanel Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Montes-Reyes

Defendant Leonardo Montes-Reyes moved to suppress evidence, including physical items from a hotel room search and statements, obtained on December 19, 2007. Law enforcement agents, including DEA Agent Marlow Luna, gained entry to Montes-Reyes's hotel room using a ruse about searching for a missing four-year-old girl. The court found this initial consent involuntary, equating the "missing girl" ruse to creating a false sense of exigent circumstances, similar to a gas leak emergency. The opinion determined that subsequent written and oral consents to search, as well as statements made by Montes-Reyes, were not sufficiently purged of the taint from the initial illegal entry. Consequently, the court granted Montes-Reyes's motion to suppress all the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent to SearchPolice DeceptionVoluntarinessMotion to SuppressExigent CircumstancesFruit of the Poisonous TreeMiranda WarningsDrug Enforcement Agency
References
43
Case No. 535519
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Audis Reyes

The claimant, Audis Reyes, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from May 31, 2022, which ruled against his claim of total industrial disability. Reyes, a construction worker, established a workers' compensation claim in 2018 under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A for conditions related to his cleanup work at the World Trade Center site in 2002. Initially classified with a permanent partial disability and a 55% wage-earning capacity for medium work, Reyes sought reclassification to a total industrial disability in June 2021, which was denied by a WCLJ and upheld by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly considered vocational and functional factors and that its determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the carrier's expert opinion that Reyes was capable of sedentary to medium work.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Industrial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityVocational FactorsMedical Expert OpinionWorld Trade Center ClaimChronic RhinitisChronic SinusitisAsthma
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2001

United States v. Reyes

Defendant Christopher Reyes sought a judgment of acquittal after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport stolen airbags in interstate commerce. The District Court, reserving judgment on the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion, reviewed the government's evidence to determine if Reyes' knowing and willful participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence included testimony from a co-conspirator's employee, recorded phone calls, and an FBI agent's account of post-arrest interrogations. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Reyes' specific intent, citing the ambiguity of his statements and the unreliability of the FBI agent's testimony due to inconsistencies and volunteered opinions. Consequently, the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was granted, and the court also commented on proper grand jury procedures and witness testimony.

Criminal LawConspiracyStolen PropertyJudgment of AcquittalRule 29 MotionSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityFBI TestimonyHearsayGrand Jury Proceedings
References
15
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03519
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

Matter of Reyes Bonilla v. XL Specialty Ins.

Claimants Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, were involved in a motor vehicle accident while commuting to a job site in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in an employer-provided van. They filed workers' compensation claims, which were established against XL Specialty Insurance by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge to being the carrier and that the employer's responsibility for transportation made the injuries compensable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the issue was unpreserved and that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment due to the employer's control over the conveyance.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationWrap-up PolicyInsurance Coverage DisputeCarrier LiabilityIssue PreservationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Sequeira

Plaintiff Juan Reyes and defendant Rafael Sequeira, 50% owners of two dissolved corporations (SAR and 91 Graham Avenue Realty Corporation), were involved in a dispute over corporate assets. Reyes sued Sequeira for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and an accounting, alleging Sequeira attempted to sell properties and transfer funds without his consent. The parties entered a settlement stipulating that property values would be determined by averaging two appraisals. However, after one appraisal was disputed, a third was obtained, and the Supreme Court averaged all three, contrary to the stipulation. Defendant appealed this valuation order. During the pendency of the appeal, Supreme Court, with a new justice presiding, granted a motion to vacate the original stipulations of settlement, concluding that no binding agreement existed. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as moot because the underlying stipulations, which were foundational to the appealed order, had been vacated. Additionally, the court ruled that the order appealed from was non-appealable as it was issued sua sponte.

Corporate DissolutionShareholder DisputeProperty ValuationStipulation of SettlementMootness DoctrineAppealability of OrdersSua Sponte OrderBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate AccountingAppraisal Methods
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Reyes v. Phoenix Beverages, Inc.

Plaintiff Eddy Reyes sued his former employer, Phoenix Beverages, Inc., alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Reyes claimed he was denied reinstatement to his sales representative position after taking FMLA leave due to a non-work-related injury. The court addressed Defendant's arguments regarding judicial estoppel and the Plaintiff's failure to provide a full-duty medical certification. The Court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Defendant failed to provide timely notice of fitness-for-duty requirements and that certain physical activities were not essential job functions. However, genuine factual disputes remain regarding whether Reyes was truly able to perform the essential functions of his job at the end of his FMLA leave, necessitating a trial.

FMLANYCHRLDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelFitness-for-Duty CertificationEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationEmployee RightsEmployer Obligations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

Wilfredo Reyes, a former IT technician for Krasdale Foods, Inc., sued his employer and its HR Director, Bernard Patton, for disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and NYSHRL. Reyes, a Type 1 diabetic, requested a 30-minute shift adjustment to manage his insulin schedule, which defendants denied, citing disruption to IT coverage. Despite providing a doctor's note that merely requested 'accommodat[ing] his working hours' (later clarified by the doctor to mean time off for appointments, not a schedule change), Krasdale deemed the medical evidence insufficient to support the requested shift modification. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ADA claims, finding Reyes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination due to insufficient medical evidence for his requested accommodation and lacked a causal connection for his retaliation claim as the denial predated his EEOC filing. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYSHRL claims.

Disability DiscriminationADANYSHRLRetaliationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentType 1 DiabetesEmployment LawShift ScheduleMedical Documentation
References
26
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Leonel Reyes

Claimant Leonel Reyes sustained work-related injuries in 2016, and his claim for workers' compensation benefits was established. Subsequently, the employer and its carrier raised concerns that Reyes had violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to fully disclose his private business activities as a disc jockey while collecting indemnity benefits. After multiple hearings, a WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board found that Reyes knowingly made false statements regarding the physical nature of his work and failed to disclose critical information to examining physicians. The Board imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, permanently disqualifying him from receiving future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and that the discretionary penalty was warranted given the egregious nature of the multiple misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Physical ActivityDisqualification of BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityMedical TestimonyIndemnity BenefitsFalse Statements
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 118 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