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

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vandewalker v. Quandt's Food Service Distributors, Inc.

Plaintiff Helen M. Vandewalker initiated legal action against Quandt’s Food Service Distributors, Inc., alleging gender discrimination under Title VII, unlawful retaliation related to a Workers’ Compensation claim, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a New York Human Rights Law violation. Vandewalker contended that her termination followed a workplace injury and was discriminatory. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Additionally, the court dismissed the voluntarily withdrawn state claims and upheld a magistrate judge's order allowing the plaintiff to amend her complaint to include the Human Rights Law claim, finding the amendment neither futile nor prejudicial.

Gender DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkers' Compensation RetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationHuman Rights LawPretextPrima Facie CaseDiscriminatory IntentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)
References
17
Case No. ADJ1418817 (VNO 0459514) ADJ3163324 (VNO 0459517)
Regular
Nov 03, 2009

EDGAR I. HERNANDEZ vs. WINNIE QUACH, dba as LICENSED MERCHANDISE DISTRIBUTORS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and ordered that any party in possession of documentation of service of all documents issued by the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board on defendant, shall file those documents.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWinnie QuachLicensed Merchandise DistributorsUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAwardProof of ServiceDocumentary EvidenceOrder Admitting
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2014

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp.

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. sued Sunny Merchandise Corp., Louis Valentin Eyewear, and Chin Zong Tsai for federal and state trademark infringement and counterfeiting related to sunglasses. The court granted Louis Vuitton's motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement, finding strong marks, similarity, and Sunny's bad faith, and denied it on counterfeiting claims. Defendants' cross-motion was denied on counterfeiting but granted for claims against Gene Tsai due to insufficient evidence of his direct involvement. The court also ruled on the admissibility of expert testimonies and redaction requests.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingLanham ActSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyBrandingMarketingConsumer ConfusionDilutionGoodwill
References
92
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drew-King ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Deep Distributors of Greater NY, Inc.

This case involves a motion filed by Kathy Drew-King, acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), against Deep Distributors of Greater NY, Inc., seeking to hold the latter in civil contempt. The NLRB alleged that Deep Distributors failed to comply with a July 5, 2016 Injunctive Order, which mandated the reinstatement of five discharged employees who were terminated for engaging in protected union activities and filing a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit. The NLRB claimed Deep Distributors imposed unlawful conditions on reinstatement, such as requiring new job applications and immigration status re-verification. Deep Distributors denied these allegations, asserting compliance with the order. While the contempt motion was pending, the NLRB issued a final administrative decision on June 20, 2017, finding Deep Distributors in violation of the NLRA, which rendered the coercive aspects of the contempt petition moot. However, the NLRB still sought compensatory relief for damages. The Court denied the NLRB's motion for civil contempt, citing a "fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness" of Deep Distributors' conduct due to conflicting accounts from both parties regarding the reinstatement process.

Civil ContemptLabor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Unfair Labor PracticesReinstatementInjunctive ReliefEmployer-Employee RelationsDischarged EmployeesUnion ActivitiesFair Labor Standards Act
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reitman v. Sobol

The petitioner, a certified social worker, sought to restore his professional license after surrendering it in 1988 following a guilty plea to sodomy. His 1992 application for restoration was denied by the Board of Regents. Subsequently, the petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in this Court to challenge the denial. The Court determined it lacked original jurisdiction to review the denial of a professional license restoration application, citing that such proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court without specific statutory authority for direct appellate review. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Professional MisconductLicense RestorationCPLR Article 78Subject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewBoard of RegentsSocial WorkerDenial of ApplicationNew York LawProfessional Licensing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liquid Asphalt Distributors Ass'n v. Roberts

The case concerns the interpretation of the 1983 amendments to Labor Law § 220, which govern prevailing wage rates for workers on public projects. Prior to 1983, the statute required extensive surveys to determine prevailing wages. The amendments aimed to streamline this by allowing the adoption of collectively bargained wage rates if 30% of workers in a specific trade and locality were subject to such agreements, and redefined 'locality' based on these agreements. Petitioners, Suit-Kote Corporation and Liquid Asphalt Distributors Association, Inc., challenged a wage schedule set by the respondent for asphalt distributors, arguing the respondent failed to verify the 30% threshold and that the threshold was not met. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the 1983 amendments shifted the burden of proof to employers to demonstrate that less than 30% of workers were subject to the adopted wage rate, a burden the petitioners failed to meet with sufficient evidence.

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220Collective bargaining agreementsStatutory interpretationBurden of proofPublic worksWage schedulesAppellate reviewIndustrial relationsLegislative intent
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 388 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