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

Falkowski v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Commercial Personnel Services, Inc., Commercial Transportation Group, and Commercial Logistics, Inc. appealed parts of the order that granted summary judgment to Krasdale Foods, Inc. on claims of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Krasdale Foods, Inc. cross-appealed the granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action, and the denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order regarding both the appeals and the cross-appeal. This decision upholds the lower court's rulings on contractual indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and the allowance of the amended complaint for negligent entrustment, while denying Krasdale's motion to dismiss the complaint due to unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceNegligent EntrustmentAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmed Order
References
20
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04372 [219 AD3d 819]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis Iannaccone, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted summary judgment dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Iannaccone alleged personal injuries suffered in October 2015 while installing camera systems for United Natural Foods, Inc., when an extension ladder he was on, resting on landscaping rocks, shifted and caused him to fall. The Supreme Court initially granted motions by the defendant and third-party defendants (Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., and Protection One Systems, Inc.) to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant and third-party defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Iannaccone's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division noted Iannaccone's testimony about the unsafe alternative placement of the ladder and the lack of evidence that available safety ties, not at the job site, would have prevented the fall. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim were denied.

Personal InjuryLadder SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Summary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
16
Case No. 73 Civ. 1329, 73 Civ. 2141
Regular Panel Decision

Ward Foods, Inc. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO

The plaintiffs, Ward Foods, Inc. and Ward Baking Company, Inc., initiated two actions seeking a declaratory judgment that no valid arbitration agreement existed with the defendant, Local 50, under the National Labor Relations Act and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The defendant responded with a general denial and petitioned the court to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. It was determined that the 1970/72 collective bargaining agreement, which included an arbitration clause, had been validly terminated by the union on September 30, 1972, through a 60-day notice. Consequently, issues that arose after this termination date, such as severance pay and welfare/pension fund contributions, were not subject to the lapsed arbitration agreement. The court also clarified that oral agreements were insufficient to compel arbitration, emphasizing the statutory requirement for a written agreement. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment, confirming the absence of a written contract compelling arbitration, and denied the defendant's petition.

National Labor Relations ActArbitration AgreementCollective BargainingContract TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentLabor DisputeWritten Agreement RequirementOral Agreement EnforceabilitySeverance Pay DisputePension Fund Contributions
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09251
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.

This case involves an appeal regarding a personal injury action stemming from a police officer, Frederick M. Cioffi, being struck by a tractor-trailer operated by Daniel Burke during a traffic stop. The plaintiffs, Cioffi and his wife, alleged negligence and violations of General Municipal Law § 205-e against multiple defendants. The appellate court reviewed several aspects, including summary judgment on Burke's liability, vicarious liability claims against Russell McCall's, Inc. and Doug Jay, and the application of the Graves Amendment to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and PLM Trailer Leasing. Additionally, the court examined whether the injured plaintiff suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and the standard of care applicable to Officer Pinto's vehicle parking during a non-emergency operation. The court modified the lower court's order by granting plaintiffs' summary judgment on Burke's liability, denying dismissal of a cause of action against Russell McCall's Inc., and dismissing part of the third-party complaint regarding Pinto's parking.

Police Officer InjuryTraffic AccidentVehicle NegligenceVicarious LiabilityGraves AmendmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryEmergency VehicleSummary JudgmentComparative Fault
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendants GEA Process Engineering and GEA Procomac S.p.A., alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,209,591. The case involved motions for summary judgment filed by the Defendants, which were subject to reports and recommendations by a Magistrate Judge. Following Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation, the District Court reviewed the matter de novo. The Court ultimately denied Plaintiff's objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment. The decision hinged on the proper construction of the patent claim term "into," which the Court found to imply the possibility of contact with the contents of a region, a condition not met by the accused product.

Patent InfringementSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate JudgeReport and RecommendationObjectionsSterile RegionsValve Activation MechanismAseptic Processing
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Presser v. Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc.

Dorothy Presser sued her former employer, Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc., under various labor laws, including the WARN Act, alleging age discrimination and improper notice of mass layoff. The court had previously dismissed some of her claims. Presser sought to amend her individual WARN Act claim into a class action. The court granted her motion to amend the complaint to include a class of non-releasor employees who did not sign releases, finding that this class could potentially meet the requirements for class certification. However, the court denied her motion to include a class of employees who had signed releases, determining that common questions of law or fact would not predominate over individual issues of waiver, thus making such a class unsuitable for certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

Age DiscriminationWARN ActClass ActionEmployment LawMass LayoffMotion to AmendRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureEastern District of New YorkReleases and Waivers
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin

Plaintiff National Foods, Inc. ("Hebrew National") filed a civil rights action against Rabbi Rubin, Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hebrew National alleged abuse of state investigatory powers, claiming violations of the due process, establishment, free speech, and commerce clauses, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint detailed events including a 1985 inspection, a subsequent altered report, a 1987 fine, public statements by Rubin, and a 1989 subpoena related to Hebrew National's Indianapolis plant. Defendant Rubin moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations amounted to a state tort defamation claim. The court granted Rubin's motion, finding that Hebrew National failed to allege actionable constitutional deprivations under the "reputation-plus" standard for due process claims, presented no facts suggesting a theological dispute for the establishment clause claim, offered conclusory allegations for the free speech claim, and did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce for the commerce clause claim.

Civil Rights Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentCommerce ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseMotion to DismissConstitutional LawState Official Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

Wilfredo Reyes, a former IT technician for Krasdale Foods, Inc., sued his employer and its HR Director, Bernard Patton, for disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and NYSHRL. Reyes, a Type 1 diabetic, requested a 30-minute shift adjustment to manage his insulin schedule, which defendants denied, citing disruption to IT coverage. Despite providing a doctor's note that merely requested 'accommodat[ing] his working hours' (later clarified by the doctor to mean time off for appointments, not a schedule change), Krasdale deemed the medical evidence insufficient to support the requested shift modification. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ADA claims, finding Reyes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination due to insufficient medical evidence for his requested accommodation and lacked a causal connection for his retaliation claim as the denial predated his EEOC filing. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYSHRL claims.

Disability DiscriminationADANYSHRLRetaliationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentType 1 DiabetesEmployment LawShift ScheduleMedical Documentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Unkechauge Nation

Plaintiff Gristede’s Foods, Inc. sued the Unkechauge Nation, Shinnecock Tribe, and related parties, alleging unauthorized sales of untaxed cigarettes and creation of a black market, violating RICO, the Lanham Act, and New York state laws. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court dismissed Gristede's RICO, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims due to lack of proximate causation or attenuated relationship. However, motions to dismiss the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 (false advertising and deceptive trade practices) claims were denied, though the latter were limited by a three-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff was also granted leave to amend its complaint to properly name some defendants.

Cigarette SalesUntaxed GoodsRacketeeringLanham ActFalse AdvertisingDeceptive Trade PracticesUnfair CompetitionUnjust EnrichmentTribal CommerceNative American Law
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KCP Food Co., Inc. v. Sava

K.C.P. Food Co., Inc. appealed the denial of a sixth preference visa petition for Christoforos Bollas by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The District Director and Associate Commissioner denied the petition due to K.C.P.'s failure to demonstrate financial ability to pay the proffered wage, relying on the company's corporate tax return. K.C.P. argued the denial was an abuse of discretion, unsupported by evidence, and violated Fifth Amendment due process. The Court, presided over by Judge Leisure, found that the INS's decision was not an abuse of discretion, as K.C.P. failed to meet its burden of proof regarding financial capability and did not present additional evidence at the administrative level. The Court also dismissed the due process claim, stating K.C.P. had no acquired property interest. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the complaint.

Immigration LawVisa PetitionSixth Preference VisaAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsFinancial AbilityProffered WageCorporate Tax Return
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 10,162 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