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

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
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. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. ADJ2147971
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

JOEL DE LEON vs. BIG LOTS; SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal by applicant Joel De Leon against Big Lots and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and adopted the Judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionPre-trial Order
References
8
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
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
Showing 1-10 of 523 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