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

Metropolitan Movers Ass'n v. Liu

Petitioners challenged the Comptroller's 2010 prevailing wage schedule for movers, arguing it was irrational and inconsistent with survey results, particularly regarding the application of Labor Law sections 220 and 230. The court found that the Comptroller incorrectly applied the 30% rule from Article 8 (Labor Law section 220), which is meant for 'Public Work' employees, instead of the discretion-based standard under Article 9 (Labor Law section 230) for 'Building Service Employees' like movers. The court also deemed arbitrary and capricious the Comptroller's inconsistent use of 'industry C' employees – including them to meet the 30% threshold but excluding their lower wages from the calculation. Consequently, the court annulled the Comptroller's prevailing wage schedule and remanded the case for a proper determination of the actual prevailing wage under Labor Law section 230, while denying other specific requests from the petitioners.

Prevailing WageLabor LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller DeterminationBuilding Service EmployeesMovers IndustryCollective Bargaining Agreement30% RuleArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after slipping on an ice patch on the steps of a building. The building was owned by Abbey Island Park, Inc., leased to Apex Transportation Corp., and subleased to All Car Movers, Ltd. Abbey Island Park, Inc. appealed an interlocutory judgment finding it liable, arguing insufficient evidence of its control over the premises or notice of the ice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury could rationally find the lessor retained control due to a lack of documentary evidence transferring maintenance duties and its own continued grass mowing. Furthermore, the court found the jury could reasonably infer the lessor had notice of the ice patch, which likely formed from a snowstorm six days prior to the accident, despite minor precipitation the day before.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallIce AccumulationLessor ControlConstructive NoticeJury Verdict SufficiencyAppellate AffirmationPersonal InjuryReal Property LawNassau County
References
9
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ4335469
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

GABRIEL CASTRO vs. CARSON TRAILERS, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an industrial injury to the applicant's back and other body parts. The defendant, Carson Trailers, Inc., sought reconsideration of an award for transportation and four hours of daily home care. The Appeals Board affirmed the award, finding the defendant had previously stipulated to these services and failed to provide contrary medical evidence showing they were no longer necessary. The Board emphasized that the defendant could not unilaterally disregard prior stipulations and orders without seeking relief.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings And AwardAgreed Medical EvaluatorStale ReportingDevelopment of Medical RecordTransportation to Medical VisitsHome CareStipulationMinute Order
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daks Leasing Corp. v. Connell

This case addresses the sufficiency of personal service under CPLR 308 (2) in New York. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant by delivering the summons and complaint to the manager of a trailer park, but at a trailer other than the defendant's residence. The court examined whether the service location qualified as the defendant's "actual dwelling place" or "usual place of abode." Distinguishing from precedents where access to a defendant's actual residence was hindered (e.g., by a doorman), the court found no such impediment here. It concluded that the defendant's specific trailer, not the general trailer park, constituted the actual dwelling place. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessCPLR 308 (2)Dwelling PlaceUsual Place of AbodeTrailer ParkMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2016

Grabar v. Nichols, Long & Moore Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs, including Joseph T. Grabar, sought damages under Labor Law and common-law negligence after Grabar fell from a trailer while refueling a welder. The trailer bed was approximately 20 inches from the ground. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting the defendant's cross-motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that the trailer did not present the type of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from other cases involving significant elevation hazards.

Labor LawElevation RiskSummary JudgmentTrailer FallCommon-Law NegligenceWorkplace SafetyPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewNew York LawConstruction Accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co.

The plaintiff, a tractor-trailer operator, delivered rice to the defendant, a New York City wholesale grocer. The defendant hired three men to unload the trailer, one of whom injured the plaintiff during an altercation. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the defendant did not exercise sufficient control over the day laborers to establish vicarious liability. The decision highlighted that the unloaders worked at their convenience, were not on payroll, and received a single cash payment. Additionally, the court found no duty for the defendant to conduct background checks for this 'as-needed' task.

vicarious liabilityindependent contractorday laborerspersonal injuryemployer liabilityduty to inquireworker controlnegligenceAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Somereve v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The injured plaintiff, operating a prime mover to hoist bricks onto a scaffold, was ejected when the machine flipped forward. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It ruled that the accident was gravity-related, stemming from the prime mover's failure to provide adequate protection or the inability of the equipment to support the load. The defendant's arguments regarding comparative negligence or the need for further discovery were rejected, as comparative negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and additional testimony would not alter the outcome. The court reiterated that if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame.

Construction AccidentHoisting Equipment FailurePrime Mover AccidentScaffold WorkGravity AccidentSummary Judgment GrantedLabor Law § 240(1)Comparative Negligence IrrelevantStatutory DutyWorkplace Ejection
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 92 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