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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2016

Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc.

Yasir Raja sued Big Geyser, Inc., for personal injuries after being struck by a truck operated by Andre Cruz, an employee of Dynasty Distributors, Inc. Raja alleged that Cruz was an employee of Big Geyser, despite Cruz working for Dynasty, which had a distributor agreement with Big Geyser. Big Geyser moved for summary judgment, arguing Cruz was an independent contractor's employee and not directly employed by them. The Supreme Court granted Big Geyser's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Big Geyser's incidental control over Dynasty's distribution was insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship with Cruz, thus dismissing the complaint against Big Geyser.

Personal InjuryEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewVehicle AccidentControl TestDistributor Agreement
References
7
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1988

Calhoun v. Big Apple Wrecking Corp.

The defendant, Big Apple Wrecking Corporation, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The underlying injury occurred at a construction site, and the Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined the injury was work-related, providing benefits to the plaintiff's decedent. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Big Apple Wrecking Corporation. The court emphasized that workers' compensation benefits serve as the exclusive remedy for employees injured by co-workers in the same employ, citing Workers’ Compensation Law. Furthermore, the court reiterated that determinations made by the Workers' Compensation Board on questions of fact, including employer-employee relationships, are final and binding under principles of res judicata.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRes JudicataAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction Site InjuryNew York LawExclusive RemedyAdministrative Determinations
References
6
Case No. 05 Civ. 0200 (CM)
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2008

Virga v. BIG APPLE CONST. & RESTORATION INC.

The plaintiffs, including John Virga and various Mason Tenders District Council Funds, sued defendants Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for unpaid fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The defendants failed to respond to discovery and a notice to admit, leading to a default judgment. The court initially granted summary judgment, awarding damages but denying imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision regarding audit costs, finding that a 'catch-all' provision in the CBA allowed for their recovery. The motion for reconsideration was granted, and imputed audit costs were awarded in addition to the previously granted damages.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementFringe BenefitsDues CheckoffsPAC ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilityAudit Costs
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Big Yank Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance (In Re Water Valley Finishing, Inc.)

This case is an appeal from an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that a Kentucky district court's award of sanctions against Big Yank Corporation, in the form of attorney's fees, was discharged in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1). Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged this ruling, arguing the claim did not arise until after the confirmation of Big Yank's reorganization plan. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, finding that the possibility of the sanctions claim was within the contemplation of the parties prior to the bankruptcy petition and plan confirmation, thus making it a pre-petition claim discharged by the plan.

Bankruptcy AppealSanctions DischargeAttorney's FeesChapter 11 ReorganizationClaim AccrualPre-petition ClaimContingent ClaimUnmatured ClaimBad Faith LitigationFederal Bankruptcy Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07834 [166 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Charter Communications, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's orders. The Supreme Court had denied Charter Communications, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3's picketing campaign and its motion to compel expedited discovery. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division found that the lower court properly declined to make factual findings required for injunctive relief under Labor Law § 807 and correctly dismissed common-law tort claims due to a failure to plead that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions.

Preliminary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionLabor DisputePicketingTrespassingCommon-Law TortUnion LiabilityExpedited DiscoveryAppellate ReviewDismissal of Complaint
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The court addresses demurrers to three indictments against Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for alleged violations of the Sherman Act. The indictments claim the union conspired to prevent the installation of out-of-state electrical equipment in New York City, thereby diverting work to local manufacturers and increasing costs. Defendants argued that the Sherman Act does not apply to labor unions and that their actions constituted a 'labor dispute' immune from antitrust laws. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the alleged conspiracy's effect on market prices and free competition fell within the scope of the Sherman Act, and that the conduct did not constitute a legitimate 'labor dispute.' Consequently, the court overruled the demurrers.

Sherman ActLabor UnionsAntitrust LawInterstate CommerceRestraint of TradeDemurrersIndictmentsElectrical IndustrySecondary BoycottPrice Fixing
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD sued Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition over their sale of tree-shaped air fresheners. Plaintiffs own registered trademarks for their air fresheners. Applying the Polaroid factors, the Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion due to strong marks, striking product similarity, competitive proximity, and low buyer sophistication. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims and a determination that the case was not exceptional under the Lanham Act, was denied, as factual disputes regarding intent and willfulness remained for trial.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsLanham ActPunitive DamagesPost-Sale ConfusionTrade DressConsumer Protection
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,289 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