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

Friot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured on a construction site for Wal-Mart when a large mass of earthen fill dislodged, pinning him against a vehicle. He commenced an action against defendant Pike Company, Inc. (general contractor) and defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (owner), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint but, upon reargument, reinstated the Labor Law § 200 claim while adhering to the dismissal of the others. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, finding the latter inapplicable to ground-level accidents and the former not covering the type of elevation-related risk. However, it was determined that further discovery was needed regarding Pike's authority and control over the work site's safety to resolve the Labor Law § 200 claim.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorSite PreparationEarthen FillPersonal InjuryUnsafe Work EnvironmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. CA 15-01322
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

NICHOLAS, WILLIAM J. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County. The initial order partially granted Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment regarding a Labor Law § 200 claim and common law negligence, while denying MLB Contractors, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division held that a general contractor or owner can be liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 for injuries caused by a dangerous work site condition if they controlled the site and had actual or constructive notice. It concluded that MLB Contractors, Inc. failed to meet its burden of proving it lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition.

Appellate ReviewSummary Judgment MotionLabor Law § 200Common Law NegligenceWork Site SafetyDangerous ConditionContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive Notice
References
3
Case No. CA 15-01862
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2016

WELLSVILLE CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed a lower court's judgment denying a petition from Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Development, Inc. The petitioner sought to annul a negative declaration issued by the Town Board of Wellsville regarding a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, citing violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found that the Town Board failed to conduct a "hard look" review concerning the project's impact on wildlife, the community character of the Village of Wellsville, and surface water, particularly in relation to an adjacent golf course reconstruction. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and the petition was granted.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactNegative DeclarationHard Look ReviewWildlife ConservationCommunity PlanningSurface Water ProtectionLand UseAppellate ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
15
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 21232
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Phillips v. Max Finkelstein, Inc.

Plaintiff Jesse Phillips, a manual employee of Max Finkelstein, Inc., was paid biweekly, violating Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) (i) which mandates weekly payment for manual workers. Phillips sued over late payments and improper wage statements. The Suffolk County Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing both causes of action. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed, citing the precedent in Vega v CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC that a private right of action exists under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) for violations of wage frequency requirements. Thus, the court reinstated Phillips' first cause of action concerning late payments but upheld the dismissal of the second cause of action regarding wage statements, as Phillips did receive statements with every payment. The final order modified the lower court's decision, denying the dismissal of the first cause of action.

wage payment frequencymanual employeeLabor Law violationsliquidated damagesprivate right of actionsummary judgmentstare decisisAppellate Division precedentwage statementsemployment law
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05833
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Durham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Claimant Esther J. Durham suffered work-related injuries, prompting her employer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging preexisting conditions contributing to her disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially approved the reimbursement claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board later reversed, citing statutory bars on evidence submission and insufficient medical proof from the employer. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court agreed that the employer's pretrial conference sheet was inadmissible due to statutory deadlines and that the employer failed to demonstrate a materially and substantially greater disability as required for reimbursement, thereby discharging the Special Disability Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundPreexisting ImpairmentMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityPretrial Conference SheetStatutory Deadline for EvidenceMedical Proof SufficiencyWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(8)(d)Appellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ1840831 (STK 0210372)
Regular
Feb 03, 2011

DEBORAH JONES vs. MAX MART, INC./SEAN LOLOEE aka SHAHRIAR LOLOEE, ADEL MORADI, THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS as administrator of the UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a worker injured in 2007 while employed by Max Mart, Inc., which was operating without workers' compensation insurance. The administrative law judge found the employer and its substantial shareholder, Sean Loloee, liable for the injury. Loloee later sought reconsideration, arguing the decision was unjust due to his lack of counsel and inability to pay, and that the lack of insurance was unintentional. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed his petition as untimely, as it was filed over a year after the award. Additionally, the Board noted the petition was also "skeletal" for failing to provide specific legal and factual grounds.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMAX MART INC.SEAN LOLOEESHAHRIAR LOLOEEADEL MORADIUNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUNDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS OF FACT AWARD AND ORDERADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEINDUSTRIAL INJURY
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 9,951 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