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

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Spitzer v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sara Spitzer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc., and Germonds Properties Corporation. Spitzer had suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall incident at the shopping center, allegedly due to a maintenance worker. The defendants presented evidence that an independent contractor, not their employees, performed the cleaning services. The court found no intrinsic danger in the cleaning activity and no proof of defendant control over the contractor's work. Consequently, the defendants were not held liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence, and the order dismissing the complaint against them was affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceSlip and FallProperty Owner LiabilityMaintenance ServicesConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05003
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2019

Reyes v. Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC

Plaintiff Amilcar Reyes fell from a building roof while installing gravel stops and sued under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. It granted Reyes's motion for partial summary judgment against Bruckner Plaza Shopping Center LLC and Metro Mechanical, LLC, concluding that no safety devices were provided. However, it dismissed the complaint against Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., the managing agent, finding it lacked supervisory authority over the worksite. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding Western Beef Retail, Inc., stating there was an issue of fact as to its status as an 'owner' or 'agent.'

Labor Law 240(1)Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityManaging Agent LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractorFall from HeightSafety Devices
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agway, Inc. Employees' 401(K) Thrift Investment Plan v. Magnuson

This case involves an action brought by Agway, Inc. Employees’ 401(k) Thrift Investment Plan and State Street Bank & Trust Company under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by various parties concerning the Agway pension plan. Defendant Mellon Trust of New England, N.A., a former fiduciary, sought court approval for a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which included a bar order preventing non-settling defendants from asserting indemnity or contribution claims against Mellon Trust. The non-settling defendants, including the Committee Defendants, Director Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, opposed the bar order, arguing it was overbroad. Magistrate Judge Peebles found the proposed bar order overreaches as it purports to restrict contribution and indemnity claims in actions brought by parties other than the plaintiffs, such as the Department of Labor. Consequently, the court denied Mellon Trust's application for settlement approval without prejudice, conditioning approval on either restricting the bar order's scope to the current action or securing the Secretary of Labor's agreement to the judgment credit reduction in any future action.

ERISAFiduciary Duty BreachPension PlanSettlement AgreementBar OrderContribution ClaimsIndemnity ClaimsPartial JudgmentNon-Settling DefendantsProportionate Fault
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lucey v. Golton Marine Co.

Gerard Lucey, an operating engineer, sued Kings Plaza Shopping Center entities for personal injuries. The defendant entities, Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Ave., Inc., Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Avenue U, Inc., and Alexander’s of Brooklyn, Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing they were Lucey's employers and thus immune under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied their motion as premature. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the appellants had established a prima facie case for summary judgment and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the complaint against the appealing defendants was dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewCorporate LiabilityAssumed Business NameWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDismissal of ComplaintNew York Appellate Division
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06752
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Nachman v. Koureichi

Clarise Nachman, an infant, by her father Kobi Nachman, sustained personal injuries after being struck by a vehicle operated by Cheick Koureichi. Koureichi was delivering groceries for Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, through Hudson Delivery Service, Inc., and received paychecks from Subcontracting Concepts, Inc. The plaintiffs initiated a consolidated action for damages. The Supreme Court denied separate motions for summary judgment filed by Hudson, Stop & Shop, and SCI. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Hudson, finding triable issues of fact regarding Koureichi's employment status. However, the court granted summary judgment to Stop & Shop and SCI, concluding that they did not exercise control over Koureichi's work methods.

personal injuryindependent contractorrespondeat superiorsummary judgmentvicarious liabilitycontrol testemployment relationshipdelivery servicesupermarket liabilityappellate review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2012

Rueda v. Elmhurst Woodside, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant Make Up Shop, dismissing the complaint and cross claims for indemnification. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning the cross claims because the appellant was not aggrieved by that portion of the order. The order was affirmed insofar as reviewed, based on the plaintiff's prior acceptance of Workers' Compensation benefits totaling $100,096.16. The court determined that accepting these benefits constituted an election of remedies, thereby barring the plaintiff from pursuing a separate common-law action against her uninsured employer, Make Up Shop, under the finality and exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawElection of RemediesSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionUninsured EmployerExclusivity DoctrineDamages RecoveryJudicial ReviewCourt Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1993

Kligman v. Call Again Thrift Shop, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The complaint was dismissed because it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The record demonstrated that the plaintiff was a volunteer employee of the defendant, a not-for-profit corporation, which had previously elected Workers' Compensation coverage for its employees. The court found no material issue of fact regarding non-coverage, rejecting the plaintiff's contention that identifying another entity as an employer affected the determination. The decision emphasized that Workers' Compensation serves as an exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyVolunteer EmployeeNot-for-Profit CorporationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAffirmed DecisionComplaint DismissalSubstantive LawAppellate DivisionCoverage Determination
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06531
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Jennings v. Stop & Shop

Claimant, Hope J. Jennings, a supermarket clerk, suffered a work-related shoulder injury in 2007, leading to a classification of nonschedule permanent partial disability with a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity in 2012, subject to a 300-week durational cap for benefits. Following further causally-related surgeries in 2017 (shoulder) and 2019 (cervical fusion), claimant sought temporary total disability benefits after the durational cap on her permanent partial disability benefits had expired. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) ultimately ruled that the expiration of the durational cap on permanent partial disability benefits does not preclude a claimant from seeking temporary total disability benefits following a causally-related surgery. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (2) (temporary total disability) and § 15 (3) (w) (permanent partial disability) operate under distinct statutory provisions, and the durational cap applies only to benefits payable under the latter paragraph.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15Temporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityDurational CapWage Loss BenefitsCervical Fusion SurgeryShoulder InjuryReclassification of DisabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 589 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