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
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Puma

A defendant's van caused an accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing a highway worker. Evidence showed the defendant's speech was slurred, and a blood test revealed cocaine, methadone, and opiates, impairing his ability to react normally. The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manslaughter, reckless driving, and other charges. The lower court dismissed several counts in the indictment, specifically counts one, two, four, five, and six, retaining counts three, seven, and eight. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating counts one (manslaughter in the second degree, reduced to criminally negligent homicide) and two (reckless driving) because the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Criminal LawManslaughterReckless DrivingDriving While Impaired by DrugsCriminally Negligent HomicideGrand Jury IndictmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle and Traffic LawPenal Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.

Jorge-Cruz ("Plaintiff") sued AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Pasquale Cartalemi, Jr. ("Defendants") for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), specifically for unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and failure to pay spread of hours. Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims under Rule 12 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for minimum wage violation, and alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing the FLSA's motor carrier exemption applies to Plaintiff. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted it for the FLSA minimum wage violation claim, finding Plaintiff's average hourly wage exceeded the minimum. The court also denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, citing the need for discovery to determine if Plaintiff's interstate driving activity was a natural, integral, and inseparable part of his duties or if the goods transported were in the flow of interstate commerce.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageMotor Carrier ExemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(c) MotionRule 56 MotionInterstate CommerceWage and Hour Dispute
References
70
Case No. ADJ8072993
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

VIRGINIA PALACIOS vs. MAXIMUM REALTY, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's earning capacity determination. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found the applicant's earning capacity based on actual wages, including rent-free housing as compensation, not solely on an hourly minimum wage calculation. The WCJ emphasized that earning capacity considers various factors like age, skill, and employment opportunities, not just hours worked at minimum wage. The Board noted that minimum wage issues should be addressed in a different forum and that such adjudication could potentially lead to reopening this case within statutory timeframes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedEarning CapacityMinimum WageApartment ManagerActual EarningsLegal Minimum WageStatutory Time FramesAdjudication
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

Plaintiffs, former employees of Applebee's restaurants in New York, initiated a collective and class action, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law concerning spread of hours and uniform reimbursement. Defendants sought summary judgment on specific claims. The court addressed the interpretation and application of New York's former 'spread of hours' provision and disputes over costs associated with required work apparel. It ultimately granted summary judgment to defendants on spread of hours claims for employees earning above minimum wage. For uniform-related claims, the court dismissed claims for ordinary wardrobe items but denied summary judgment for the laundering costs of Applebee's logo shirts for minimum wage employees.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York State Labor LawSpread of Hours ProvisionUniform ReimbursementSummary JudgmentMinimum WageClass ActionCollective ActionRestaurant Industry
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2007

Jenkins v. Hanac, Inc.

Plaintiff Nicole Jenkins initiated a class and collective action against HANAC, Inc. and Home Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Her claim focused on the defendants' alleged failure to pay 'spread of hours' compensation for days where her work interval exceeded ten hours. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending the regulation did not apply to Jenkins. The court converted the motion to one for partial summary judgment and, deferring to the New York State Department of Labor's interpretation, determined that the 'spread of hours' regulation does not mandate additional compensation for employees whose total wages already sufficiently surpass the minimum wage. Finding that Jenkins' salary consistently exceeded the statutory minimum, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSpread of HoursMinimum WageSummary JudgmentHome Health AidesClass ActionWage and HourEmployment LawRegulatory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,727 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