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. 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. ADJ13713694
Regular
May 09, 2025

JOSE ORTEGA vs. CARDENAS MARKETS, LLC; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION

Applicant Jose Ortega claimed a COVID-19 related injury from May 10, 2020, while employed by Cardenas Markets, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found the injury compensable under Labor Code section 3212.86. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the presumption's repeal and questioning the Qualified Medical Evaluator's evidence and judicial impartiality. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the factual and legal issues, deferring a final decision on the merits of the petition.

COVID-19 presumptionLabor Code section 3212.86Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)substantial medical evidencejudicial biasstatutory repealdate of injurycompensabilityrebuttal of presumption
References
16
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. 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. 2015 NY Slip Op 08142 [133 AD3d 626]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Cardenas v. BBM Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, Jose Cardenas, was injured while installing a 500-pound beam, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) against BBM Construction Corp., the general contractor. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing both causes of action for BBM Construction and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the injury was not due to an elevation-related hazard. However, it reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, which was predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.3 (a), as BBM Construction failed to prima facie demonstrate its inapplicability or non-violation. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was denied due to remaining factual issues.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 23-2.3(a)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardHoistScaffoldAppellate Division
References
13
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
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08907 [156 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Claim of Kraus v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Claimant, Gerard J. Kraus, a workers' compensation claims adjustor for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., was terminated due to inconsistent application of a no-fault policy, which led to him receiving threats from unionized employee drivers. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging a psychiatric occupational disease, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and insomnia, stemming from work-related stress and threats. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a causally-related accidental psychiatric injury and rejected the employer's contention that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board also denied the employer's application for reconsideration, full Board review, and a rehearing, deeming some filings untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's determination of a compensable work-related psychiatric injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board properly exercised its discretion in its procedural rulings.

Psychiatric InjuryPTSDWorkplace StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer PolicyEmployee TerminationAdministrative ProcedureAppellate DivisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
18
Case No. 87
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2023

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Lazalee v. Wegman's Food Markets

Claimant Thomas Lazalee filed for workers' compensation benefits for a right thumb injury and carpal tunnel syndrome in 2018, and later for left-hand injuries in 2019. The employer, Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., paid temporary total disability benefits. At an April 2020 hearing, the employer accepted liability but requested to cross-examine the claimant's physician regarding the degree of impairment. The WCLJ denied the request, a decision affirmed by the Board and Appellate Division, which deemed the request untimely. The New York State Court of Appeals reversed, holding that 12 NYCRR 300.10 (c) mandates that a referee 'shall grant an adjournment' for cross-examination of an attending physician if requested at a hearing before a decision on the merits, affording no discretion to deny such a request. The court noted that if the Board desires discretion, it must amend its rules. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationNew York Court of AppealsCross-examinationPhysician ReportAdjournmentProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationRule 300.10(c)Employer RightsDisability Benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bakery Confectionery Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union, Local 116 v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

This case involved a dispute between the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 116, and Wegmans Food Markets concerning the arbitrability of an employee's termination. Employee Derrick McCullough was dismissed for alleged theft, and the Union sought to compel arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement's theft exclusion was ambiguous or misapplied. The District Court granted summary judgment for Wegmans, denying the Union's cross-motion, concluding that the exclusionary clause was unambiguous. The court found Wegmans' characterization of McCullough's conduct as theft was valid based on the evidence presented at the time of termination, thereby rendering the grievance non-arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActTheft Exclusion ClauseEmployee TerminationGrievance ProcedureContract InterpretationFederal District CourtUnion Rights
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 658 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