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

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1988

In re Lafayette Storage & Moving Corp.

The Commissioner of Labor appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's finding that drivers owning their own tractors were independent contractors, not employees, of Lafayette Storage & Moving Corporation. The Commissioner argued the decision lacked substantial evidence and was inconsistent with prior rulings. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing the facts from previous cases by noting that Lafayette exerted significantly less control over its drivers, who owned their equipment, set their delivery schedules, and could reject jobs, thus supporting their classification as independent contractors.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipTractor-Trailer DriversAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial EvidenceLabor LawWorkers' CompensationFranchise Agent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.

Plaintiffs Marcel Alleyne and Earl Legrande filed a class action lawsuit against Time Moving & Storage, Inc. and The Time Record Storage Company, LLC, alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants invoked the motor carrier exemption as a defense. The parties reached a class settlement agreement for the state law claims, which was provisionally certified. Following objections from some class members regarding the fairness of the settlement, class certification, and attorney's fees, the Court, presided over by Judge Vitaliano, granted final class certification and approved the settlement. The Court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the risks of litigation, denied the objectors' motion to intervene, and approved attorney's fees of $60,000.

Class ActionOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier ExemptionWage and Hour ClaimsClass SettlementSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesRule 23 Certification
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1978

Fein v. Elm Moving & Storage Co.

This case is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied a claim for death compensation. The Board's decision, as amended on May 24, 1978, explicitly stated that no employer-employee relationship existed between the decedent, Larry Fein, and either Elm Moving and Storage, Inc. or Emanuel Yarmish d/b/a Elm Moving and Storage. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and found that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination, leading to the affirmation of the original decision without costs.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipDeath ClaimAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaim Disallowance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2011

Claim of McCluskey v. Certified Moving & Storage

Claimant, employed by a moving and storage company, filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained while moving a heavy credenza. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a work-related injury on February 15, 2010. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the accident date to February 13, 2010, and otherwise affirmed. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed, but the decision was affirmed, citing substantial evidence and corroborating medical and coworker testimony regarding the injury's causation, deeming the precise accident date not dispositive.

Work-related injuryBack injuryCausationSubstantial evidenceCorroborating testimonyMedical evidenceAccident date disputeWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewCredenza
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein's Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Westport Insurance

In this breach of insurance contract action, plaintiff Klein’s Moving & Storage, Inc. sought reimbursement from Selective Way Insurance Company for costs incurred in moving warehouse contents after a fire, enabling cleaning and repairs. While Selective paid for direct physical losses, it denied coverage for the manipulation expenses, arguing they did not constitute direct physical loss under the Commercial Inland Marine policy. Klein contended these costs were necessary to protect insured property from further damage. The court, interpreting the policy, granted Selective's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. It determined that the policy covered actual loss or damage to property, not expenses for restoring the premises, thus absolving Selective of any obligation for Klein's asserted claims.

Insurance contractProperty damageFire lossWarehouseBreach of contractPolicy interpretationCovered causes of lossDuty to mitigateSummary judgmentDismissal motion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manchester Equipment Co., Inc. v. American Way and Moving Co.

Plaintiff Manchester Equipment Co., Inc. sued defendants for negligence after approximately $500,000 worth of computer equipment was stolen by an individual posing as a Manchester client. All defendants except Mayflower Transit, Inc. were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mayflower, the parent company of American Way Moving and Storage Co., Inc., then moved for summary judgment. The court examined whether Mayflower could be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary, American Way, under a control theory or an agency theory of liability. The court found insufficient evidence to establish complete domination and control by Mayflower over American Way or an agency relationship for the transaction in question. Consequently, the court granted Mayflower's motion for summary judgment, closing the case.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityAgency TheoryCorporate VeilTheftFraudInterstate TransportationStorage Services
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crystal v. Board of Education

The Long Beach Classroom Teachers Association initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding on behalf of six school nurse teachers and one dental hygiene teacher whose tenured positions were abolished by the respondent in May 1975 due to budgetary constraints. The petitioner contended that the 'vertical' tenure classification was unconstitutional, arguing for a 'horizontal' classification that would protect the named teachers by displacing less senior general academic teachers. However, the court ruled that the petitioner lacked standing to sue, as the rights were personal to the individual teachers who had not formally joined the proceeding or filed claims. Furthermore, the court identified a potential conflict of interest, as granting the requested relief would adversely affect current members of the association. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the individual teachers' failure to assert their own rights left no alternative.

Tenure rightsStanding to sueCPLR Article 78Teacher terminationVertical tenureHorizontal tenureBudgetary economiesSchool nurse teacherDental hygiene teacherIndispensable parties
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1985

Linares v. Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Time Moving and Storage (employer) and Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp. (vehicle lessor), in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against both the employer and the vehicle owner, as the injury occurred while the plaintiff was a passenger in an employer-leased vehicle driven by a co-employee. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars, citing the significant delay (nearly four years after inception of the lawsuit) and completion of all discovery.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceLeased Vehicle LiabilityAppellate AffirmationMotion to Amend PleadingsBill of ParticularsDelay in Litigation
References
5
Case No. ADJ210492 (STK 0208739)
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

MICHAEL HASLEY vs. GRACE MOVING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Grace Moving Company's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award of 50% permanent disability to Michael Hasley for a neck injury. The Board found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Agreed Medical Evaluator's report was deemed ambiguous regarding causation and apportionment, and the defendant did not provide clarifying evidence. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to an unapportioned award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEcausationreasonable medical probability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,784 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