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
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
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. 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

Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD sued Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition over their sale of tree-shaped air fresheners. Plaintiffs own registered trademarks for their air fresheners. Applying the Polaroid factors, the Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion due to strong marks, striking product similarity, competitive proximity, and low buyer sophistication. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims and a determination that the case was not exceptional under the Lanham Act, was denied, as factual disputes regarding intent and willfulness remained for trial.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsLanham ActPunitive DamagesPost-Sale ConfusionTrade DressConsumer Protection
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. v. Hirschfeld

Plaintiffs Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. and Charles Aug filed an action against defendants Michael Hirschfeld, The Hirschfeld Companies, Inc., European American Bank (EAB), Paul Arendt, and Mark Anderson, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The plaintiffs claimed that Hirschfeld, with the complicity of EAB employees Arendt and Anderson, misappropriated corporate funds through unauthorized loans and the mishandling of a Treasury Bill, using EAB accounts. Defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claims for failure to state a claim and state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the mailings cited by plaintiffs were not

Racketeering ActivityRICO ActMail FraudScheme to DefraudMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Enterprise
References
11
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06798 [131 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2015

Rossi v. Flying Horse Farm, Inc.

Troy Rossi, a horse groomer, sued Flying Horse Farm, Inc., for personal injuries sustained from a ladder fall at the defendant's commercial property, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted Rossi's motion to dismiss the defendant's homeowner's exemption defense and, sua sponte, dismissed the recalcitrant worker defense. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the homeowner's exemption, finding the property was primarily commercial and not a residence under the exemption. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by reinstating the recalcitrant worker defense. This modification was based on the Supreme Court's error in dismissing the defense sua sponte when the plaintiff had not moved for such relief.

Personal injuryLabor LawHomeowner's exemptionRecalcitrant worker defenseSummary judgmentAppellate procedureAffirmative defensesLadder fallCommercial propertyProperty owner liability
References
11
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

Angelora v. Kent Stores, Inc.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint against Kent Stores, Inc. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the second cause of action in the plaintiff's amended complaint against Louis Marcus. The basis for these dismissals was the plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The decision included an award of ten dollars in costs and disbursements.

Amended ComplaintDismissalSufficiency of FactsCause of ActionAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsConcurring JusticesCivil Procedure
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 10,072 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