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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McConnell v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local 445

Plaintiff William McConnell filed a lawsuit against Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 445, alleging the Union retaliated against him for his criticism of their contract policies. McConnell claimed he was removed from hiring lists and faced false charges leading to his dismissal as a business agent. He asserted violations of his free speech and due process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Although his initial grievance with the NLRB was dismissed, the court found it did not bar the LMRDA action. However, the court ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that McConnell's LMRDA claims were time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to unfair labor practices.

LMRDA claimsUnion retaliationFree speech rights (Union)Due process (Union discipline)Statute of limitationsNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Unfair labor practicesExclusive NLRB jurisdictionFair representation suitsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
References
19
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
May 01, 2008

In the Matter of Ramroop v. Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc.

This case involves a motion filed by Sameer M. Ashar et al. seeking leave to appear as amici curiae in the appeal of Ronnie Ramroop against Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc. and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the submitted motion on April 28, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the Court issued its decision regarding this procedural request. The motion for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal was granted. The proposed brief was accepted, with instructions for service and filing within seven days.

Workers' CompensationAmici CuriaeMotion PracticeAppellate ProcedureNew York Court of AppealsProcedural RulingLeave to AppearBrief FilingAppeal GrantedLabour Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corporate Printing Co. v. New York Typographical Union No. 6

Corporate Printing Company, Inc. sought to stay an arbitration initiated by New York Typographical Union No. 6 concerning contributions to a Benefit and Productivity Fund and to dismiss the designated arbitrator, Walter L. Eisenberg. Corporate Printing also sought to initiate a second arbitration under "League Option A." The court considered whether Corporate Printing, having withdrawn from the 'League,' could exercise rights previously granted to the League under a 1975 collective bargaining agreement. The court ruled that Corporate Printing could not unilaterally dismiss the arbitrator nor invoke rights explicitly granted to the League. Claims of arbitrator bias and procedural non-compliance were deemed premature or matters for the arbitrator. Consequently, the initial arbitration proceeded, while Corporate Printing's requested arbitration was stayed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployer-Union DisputeAgency LawEstoppelArbitrator BiasProcedural DefectsLabor LawFederal Court JurisdictionWithdrawal from Association
References
11
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
Showing 1-10 of 268 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