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. ADJ15834374
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

HARMINDER SINGH vs. SUNVIEW LOGISTICS, INC.; SPEED INTERMODAL; MANPREET SINGH; CLEAR SPRING INSURANCE

The case involves Harminder Singh, a truck driver, claiming a workers' compensation injury while employed by Sunview Logistics, Inc. and/or Manpreet Singh dba Speed Intermodal. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found joint employment and joint and several liability between Sunview Logistics and Speed Intermodal. Defendant Speed Intermodal sought reconsideration, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for joint employment. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, concurring with the WCJ's findings of fact regarding joint employment, citing substantial documentary and testimonial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSunview LogisticsSpeed IntermodalManpreet Singhjoint employmentjoint and several liabilitypetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gotham Logistics, Inc. v. Local 917 International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiffs, Gotham Logistics, Inc., Bestway Services, Inc., and Bestway Logistics Transportation, Inc., trucking companies, initiated an action against Defendant Local 917 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Secretary-Treasurer under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging an unfair labor practice and tortious interference with contract. The dispute arose after the Union negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with SWS, an employer of the plaintiffs' services, leading SWS to hire more in-house unionized employees and consequently reducing its need for plaintiffs' external trucking services. Plaintiffs argued this constituted an unlawful secondary boycott. The court, presided over by District Judge Wexler, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the Union's actions to be lawful primary activity directed at SWS concerning its own employees, rather than an unlawful secondary boycott aimed at the plaintiffs. As the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the entire action.

Labor Management Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary BoycottPrimary ActivityCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) FRCPTortious Interference with ContractJurisdictionTrucking Services
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07642
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Aston R. Thomas, a claimant, was hired by US Pack Logistics, LLC to deliver blood samples. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Thomas was an employee of US Pack Logistics, LLC, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. US Pack Logistics, LLC appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, noting that US Pack Logistics, LLC exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over significant aspects of Thomas's work, despite Thomas using his own vehicle and not being reimbursed for expenses. The court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a question of fact, and the Board's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, is beyond further judicial review.

Unemployment Insurance LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance ContributionsLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02463 [204 AD3d 1185]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Rivera (Northeast Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Northeast Logistics, Inc. (NEL) is a logistics company. Claimant Paul Rivera was engaged as a delivery driver for NEL and later applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor initially found Rivera to be an employee and NEL liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reversed this, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently reversed the ALJ's determination, sustaining the Department's findings. NEL appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence that NEL exercised sufficient control over Rivera to establish an employment relationship, despite evidence that might support a contrary conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardDepartment of LaborDelivery DriverLogistics CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Michigan Logistics Inc.

Plaintiffs (Johanna Diaz, et al.) sued Michigan Logistics Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries (collectively, "Diligent"), and Parts Authority Inc. for alleged violations of the FLSA and NYLL, claiming misclassification as independent contractors and denial of minimum wage and overtime. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, citing owner-operator agreements with arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers and that Parts Authority, a nonsignatory, could not compel arbitration. The court, presided by Judge Wexler, granted the defendants' motion, finding that even if the FAA did not apply, New York arbitration law favored arbitration and that Parts Authority could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel. Consequently, the Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was stayed pending arbitration.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawArbitrationIndependent Contractor ClassificationWage and Hour ClaimsOvertime CompensationClass Action WaiverCollective Action WaiverFederal Arbitration ActEquitable Estoppel
References
22
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02149 [215 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Morales (Amazon Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nancy Morales, a delivery partner for Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined an employment relationship existed between Morales and ALI, making ALI liable for contributions. ALI appealed, arguing that Morales was an independent contractor and not totally unemployed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that ALI exercised sufficient control over its delivery partners, mirroring precedent set in *Matter of Khaychuk*. The court also ruled that the 'not totally unemployed' argument was not properly before it, as it was outside the scope of the administrative hearing.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesAmazon FlexControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor Law ComplianceUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07104
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Khaychuk (Amazon Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI) from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that ALI was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for claimant Alexander Khaychuk and others similarly situated. Khaychuk, a delivery partner (DP) for ALI's Amazon Flex platform, applied for unemployment benefits after his engagement ended. The Board determined an employment relationship existed, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that ALI exercised sufficient control over significant aspects of the DPs' work, such as providing customers, assigning deliveries, setting time frames, and unilaterally determining fees. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, despite arguments that could support an independent contractor classification.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipAmazon FlexDelivery PartnersControl TestUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentRemuneration
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03295 [205 AD3d 1245]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Matter of Legros (Northeast Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Ali A. Legros, a delivery driver for Northeast Logistics, Inc. (NEL), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after the termination of his relationship with NEL. The Department of Labor initially determined Legros was an employee, making NEL liable for contributions. This was initially overruled by an Administrative Law Judge, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding Legros to be an employee. NEL appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship based on NEL's control over claimant's work, including reviewing driving records, requiring specific insurance, and managing assignments and pay.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardControl TestRemunerationOwner Operator AgreementDelivery Drivers
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02467
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Chichester (Northeast Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case involves an appeal from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Northeast Logistics, Inc. (NEL) liable for unemployment insurance contributions for Sledge Chichester and similarly situated drivers. Chichester, an owner-operator driver for NEL, applied for unemployment benefits after ceasing delivery services. The Department of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Chichester was an employee of NEL, citing NEL's exercise of control over its drivers, including setting delivery expectations, deducting fees, and imposing non-disclosure agreements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employer-employee relationship, despite some evidence to the contrary.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceOwner-Operator AgreementDelivery ServicesUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewControl TestLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gorenflo v. Penske Logistics

Plaintiff Sharon Gorenflo sued Penske Logistics, LLC and several individuals, including Union representatives, under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging breach of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for wrongful suspension and termination without just cause. She also initially asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, which were dismissed and her suit converted exclusively to an LMRA claim. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the suit was barred by New York's election of remedies doctrine due to a prior complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). The court denied the motion to dismiss against Penske, finding the DHR complaint, which alleged discrimination, did not sufficiently overlap with the federal breach of contract claims to invoke the election of remedies doctrine. However, the court granted dismissal of the breach of contract claims against individual defendants Cole, Miletics, Quinn, Svingala, and Hitchcock, as they were not signatories to the CBA, a requirement for LMRA claims against individuals.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationElection of Remedies DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Non-Signatory DefendantsIndividual Liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 72 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