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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04970
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2021

Khan v. Khan

Nazia Khan, as administrator of the decedent's estate, appealed a Supreme Court, Nassau County order which granted Zafar Khan's motion for summary judgment. The action sought damages for negligence and wrongful death, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) after the decedent fell from a roof. The Supreme Court also denied Khan's motion to renew opposition to a prior order precluding her expert witness. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the defendant exempt from certain Labor Law provisions as a one- or two-family dwelling owner who did not direct or control the work. Additionally, the court found the defendant established no creation or notice of the dangerous condition for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentLabor LawHomeowner ExemptionNegligenceWrongful DeathExpert PreclusionSafe Place to WorkDiscovery OrdersNassau County
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07419 [166 AD3d 599]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

Khan v. Old Navy

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Asghar Khan sued Old Navy after a clothing rack allegedly fell on him in 2012. The parties entered a stipulation in 2016 requiring Khan to provide medical authorizations and records related to a prior 2008 accident, for which he had a workers' compensation claim, within 21 days. Failure to comply would result in preclusion of evidence. Khan failed to comply, leading Old Navy to move for summary judgment. The Supreme Court conditionally granted Old Navy's motion and Khan's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Khan failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the so-ordered stipulation, making the conditional order of preclusion absolute. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was denied.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment MotionConditional Order of PreclusionWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscovery SanctionsStipulationAppellate DivisionMedical RecordsEvidence PreclusionNegligence Action
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Douglas MacHine & Tool Co., Inc.

Subhan Khan sued Douglas Machine & Tool Company, Inc. and TurboCombustor Technology, Inc. for failure to pay sums due under a debenture. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Khan violated a Subordination Agreement by attempting to collect on a junior debt without the senior creditor's consent. Khan cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the Subordination Agreement was invalidly assigned or that the senior debt had been paid. The court found the Subordination Agreement validly assigned and in force, and that Khan failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence that the senior debt was extinguished. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Khan's action, while denying Khan's cross-motion.

Summary JudgmentDebentureSubordination AgreementContract LawAssignment of ContractCorporate Veil PiercingOhio LawNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
24
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2006

Kahn v. IBI Armored Services, Inc.

Rahaman Khan, a former employee of IBI Armored Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act. The defendant, IBI, asserted an affirmative defense claiming Khan's work was exempt from overtime provisions under the FLSA's Motor Carrier Exemption. Khan, a vault attendant, was responsible for off-loading and preparing cargo but did not physically load it onto trucks or operate forklifts. The Court found that Khan's duties, involving packing and handling, did not meet the definition of "loading" that significantly affects vehicle safety, thus rendering the exemption inapplicable. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Khan, awarding him $7,744.25 in basic overtime pay, which was doubled to $15,488.50 due to the employer's failure to demonstrate a reasonable basis for its actions.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActMotor Carrier ExemptionNew York Minimum Wage ActVault Attendant DutiesCargo HandlingFLSA Exemption AnalysisEmployee RightsWage DisputeAffirmative Defense
References
24
Case No. ADJ7019734, ADJ7019744
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

WAJID KHAN vs. DAVITA, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Wajid Khan's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The Administrative Law Judge found Khan's occupational group number to be 212, resulting in a 69% permanent disability rating. Khan argued for a higher rating based on his duties also fitting occupational group 340, but the Board denied reconsideration. The Board found insufficient evidence to support Khan's dual occupational classification and noted his procedural violation by attaching inadmissible evidence to his petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityOccupational Group NumberDialysis TechnicianPatient Care TechnicianConsultative Rating DeterminationWCAB Rule 10166(b)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiff Atif Khan sued Bank of America, N.A. alleging discrimination based on disability (Irritable Bowel Syndrome), national origin, and religion under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that Khan failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between his alleged disability or protected activities and his termination, or to show that the bank's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

ADATitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimDisability RightsNational Origin DiscriminationReligious AccommodationIrritable Bowel SyndromeSummary Judgment MotionFederal Court Procedure
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Fulton Street Realty Venture

This case involves an appeal by a defendant and third-party plaintiff concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while performing renovation work at premises owned by the appellant and leased by The Wiz of Fulton Street, Inc. The appellant initiated a third-party action and sought summary judgment on its cross claims for common-law and contractual indemnification against NYEC, Inc. (formerly The Wiz, Inc.). The Supreme Court denied the appellant's motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding a special employment relationship under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would bar common-law indemnification. Additionally, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence for its claim of contractual indemnification, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's decision on appeal.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallCross-ClaimsSpecial Employment RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Law § 11
References
4
Case No. ADJ8606267, ADJ8963104
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

MOHAMMAD KHAN vs. COTATI CHEVRON, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved applicant Mohammad Khan and defendants Cotati Chevron and Employers Compensation Insurance Fund. The petitioner, who filed a petition for reconsideration of a November 26, 2014 decision, subsequently withdrew that petition. Therefore, the Board issued an order dismissing the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedApplicantDefendantCase NumbersSanta Rosa District OfficeOrderWithdrawnPetitioner
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. $293,316 in United States Currency

Claimants Ali Sher Khan, Akbar Ali Khan, and Fazal Subhan were convicted of currency smuggling offenses. The government initiated civil forfeiture proceedings in rem for the seized currency, seeking summary judgment for the entire amount. The court considered whether forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c) is subject to review under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause and 18 U.S.C. § 983(g). The court held that such forfeiture is subject to review and found that forfeiture of the entire amount would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the claimants' offenses. Ultimately, the court ordered the forfeiture of fifty percent of each claimant’s currency, specifically $33,500 for Ali Sher Khan, $9,650 for Akbar Ali Khan, and $5,000 for Fazal Subhan.

Civil ForfeitureCurrency SmugglingExcessive Fines ClauseEighth AmendmentProportionality ReviewBulk Cash Smuggling StatuteUSA Patriot ActAsset Forfeiture Reform ActCriminal PunishmentIn Rem Forfeiture
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 21 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