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. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
8
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08400 [123 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Garcia v. Market Associates

The plaintiffs, Alvin Garcia and his wife, initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Mr. Garcia at a demolition site. While operating a water truck to control dust, a concrete slab collapsed beneath the vehicle, causing it to fall to the basement level. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying summary judgment to Market Associates and Rockstone Development Corp. regarding the Labor Law section 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, the dismissal of Labor Law sections 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against all defendants, and all claims against Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., were affirmed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMeans and MethodsSafe Place to WorkDemolition Site
References
22
Case No. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Everest National Insurance Company concerning its duty to defend and indemnify Schimenti Construction Corporation, Best Buy, Inc., and Dame Contracting, Inc., in a personal injury action. The underlying plaintiff, an employee of Dame, sustained injuries on a construction site. Schimenti and Best Buy, a general contractor and property owner, were allegedly not named as additional insureds on Dame's policy with Everest, despite a contractual requirement. All parties involved failed to provide timely notice of the accident to Everest. The Supreme Court initially denied Everest's cross-motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court granted Everest's cross-motion, ruling that the failure to provide timely notice vitiated the insurance contract and that the reasons for delay were unreasonable. Consequently, Everest was determined to have no obligation to defend or indemnify the other parties.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSubcontractor LiabilityAdditional InsuredsPersonal InjuryLate Notice Defense
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1992

Lowe v. State

Claimant Ronald Lowe, an inmate, sustained severe injuries at a correctional facility's sawmill due to the State's failure to provide adequate safety measures. He and his wife filed claims, with the Court of Claims finding the State 100% at fault and awarding damages. On appeal, the State argued claimant's negligence and claimants sought increased compensation. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, determining the claimant was not contributorily negligent given the hazardous work conditions and the inadequacy of tools provided. The court also found the damages awarded were appropriate, citing the claimant's prior work history and lack of substantial impact on his earning capacity due to the injury.

Inmate injuryCorrectional facility accidentSawmill accidentWorkplace safetyNegligence of StateDamages assessmentLost earningsComparative negligenceOSHA violationsAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geltzer v. Artists Marketing Corp. (In Re Cassandra Group)

Robert L. Geltzer, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Cassandra Group, initiated this action to avoid a $300,000 transfer from the Debtor to Artists Marketing Corporation (AMC), Lawrence E. Bathgate, and The Bathgate Group. The Trustee alleged the transfer constituted a fraudulent conveyance under the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor and Creditor Law, and also sought recovery for unjust enrichment. The court found that The Cassandra Group was insolvent at the time of the transfer and that the transfer lacked fair consideration and good faith. The defendants, AMC, Bathgate, and The Bathgate Group, were deemed to have benefited from the transfer despite their role in allowing a key celebrity (DiCaprio) to rescind an agreement without legal basis, which contributed to the failure of the AMC venture. Consequently, the court ruled that the $300,000 transfer is avoidable and awarded prejudgment interest to the Trustee.

BankruptcyFraudulent ConveyanceConstructive FraudIntentional FraudUnjust EnrichmentInsolvent DebtorPrejudgment InterestChapter 7New York Debtor and Creditor LawEscrow Agreement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shandraw v. Tops Markets, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ironworker, initiated an action against Tops Markets, Inc. and Camridge Construction, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained on a construction project, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) due to a hazardous ground condition. The Supreme Court partially dismissed these claims, notably the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and parts of the remaining claims. On appeal, the court further modified the order, ruling that Labor Law § 241 (6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) was inapplicable as the incident area was not a designated floor or platform. It also concluded that the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action should have been entirely dismissed, asserting that the hazardous condition was readily observable by the plaintiff, thus negating the defendants' duty to protect against it.

Ironworker injuryConstruction site accidentPremises liabilitySummary judgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous conditionReadily observable hazardAppellate reviewPersonal injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Super Markets, Inc. v. Liss

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,002 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