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

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dipilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Angela DiPilato, a 43-year-old single female, applied to become a 7-Eleven franchisee and was denied. She alleged discrimination based on age, gender, and marital status, filing claims under federal and New York State laws against 7-Eleven and its employees Lynch, Hagler, and Rubinett. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on most claims but denying it for claims under New York State Human Rights Law § 296(5)(b) against 7-Eleven and Lynch, and New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c against all defendants. District Judge Cathy Seibel reviewed objections and adopted the R&R, concluding that summary judgment is granted to defendants on most claims, denied for the two specified NY state law claims, and affirmed the order denying leave to amend the complaint. The court found that franchisees are independent contractors, thus federal employment discrimination claims (Title VII, ADEA) were dismissed, as were conspiracy claims and most state constitutional claims.

DiscriminationFranchise LawSummary JudgmentMagistrate Report and RecommendationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationNew York Human Rights LawNew York Civil Rights LawIndependent Contractor
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tay-Kwamya

The Debtor, Tay-Kwamya, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 18, 2006. The Chapter 7 Trustee requested dismissal due to the Debtor's failure to provide all required payment advices within 60 days of filing, as mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(l)(B)(iv) and General Order M-315. The Debtor explained that two pay stubs were missing but that her other submitted pay stubs and sworn affidavit provided sufficient "other evidence of payment." The Court found that the Debtor had met the statutory requirements, considering her fixed hourly wage and the likely minimal impact of the missing documents on creditors. Consequently, the Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee's request for dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor's DutiesPayment AdvicesSection 521(a)(1)(B)(iv)Automatic DismissalGeneral Order M-315Evidentiary RequirementsTrustee RequestDismissal Denied
References
11
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. 10 Civ. 3036
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2011

Industrial Risk Insurers v. 7 World Trade Co.

Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI) petitioned for a stay of arbitration proceedings initiated by 7 World Trade Company, L.P. (7WTCo.) concerning a dispute over a 2005 settlement agreement. This agreement resolved an insurance coverage dispute following the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. 7WTCo. alleged breach of contract by IRI regarding a subsequent $1.2 billion property damage settlement. The court, presided over by District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, examined subject-matter jurisdiction. It found no diversity jurisdiction due to common citizenship in New York via IRI's member, Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation, and no federal question jurisdiction under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA) because the core dispute was contractual, not directly related to the 9/11 events. Consequently, the action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

ArbitrationJurisdictionSubject-Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionATSSSAFAASettlement AgreementContract Dispute9/11 Litigation
References
17
Case No. 03-27303
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2004

In Re Ambotiene

Richard J. McCord, as Chapter 7 trustee for Aldona Ambotiene, sought attorneys' fees and costs from Grand Street Realty, LLC and its counsel due to their obstruction of the Trustee's efforts to inspect the Debtor's assets. The Landlord repeatedly refused access to the premises, forcing the Trustee to file a motion to compel. The Court found that the Landlord and its counsel did not act in good faith and caused the Trustee to incur unnecessary expenses in fulfilling his statutory and fiduciary duties. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee an award of $6,987 in attorneys' fees and $166.79 in costs, totaling $7,253.79, to be paid jointly and severally by the Landlord and its counsel.

Attorneys' FeesCosts AwardedChapter 7 BankruptcyTrustee DutiesCreditor ObstructionSanctionsBankruptcy Code Section 105Good Faith RequirementAsset InspectionFiduciary Duty
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bunn v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

The claimant, a mechanic, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in December 2009. In August 2012, a doctor determined that his condition was causally related to his employment, leading him to file for workers' compensation benefits in October 2012. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the claim time-barred, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, setting the disablement date as August 7, 2012, and establishing the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant's application was timely filed as he knew or should have known of the causal relationship on August 7, 2012.

occupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndrometimely filingdate of disablementmedical opinioncausal relationshipemployer liabilityappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers compensation benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fay & Signal-Stat Corp.

This case involves a dispute stemming from a stipulation made on August 7, 1952, between a petitioner (union) and a respondent (employer). The stipulation concerned the reinstatement of an employee named Pagan on probation in the employer's screw driver department. It was agreed that if Pagan's production fell below a certain standard, the matter would be submitted to arbitration. On December 18, 1952, the employer demanded arbitration regarding their right to discharge Pagan for non-compliance with the stipulation. The petitioner appealed an order denying a motion to stay arbitration. The court affirmed the order, stating that the August 7, 1952, stipulation did not intend to limit the arbitrator's authority, allowing the arbitrator to determine the resolution of the dispute, which could include Pagan's transfer or discharge.

arbitrationunionemployeremployeestipulationdischargeprobationproduction disputearbitrator authorityappeal
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,473 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