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. 651884/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2017

1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC v. McDonald's Corp.

The case concerns a dispute between 1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC (Landlord) and McDonald's Corporation (Tenant) regarding the fair market value (FMV) rent under a commercial lease. The core issue involved the interpretation of the "highest and best use of the demised premises" clause, which was initially ruled upon by the court in Landlord's favor before arbitration. Subsequently, Tenant allegedly committed misconduct during arbitration by relitigating this court-decided issue and submitting an expert opinion discrediting the court's ruling. Landlord moved to vacate the arbitration award, citing Tenant's misconduct. The court denied Landlord's motion and granted Tenant's cross-motion to confirm the award, determining that Landlord failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the arbitrators' decision.

ArbitrationLease DisputeFair Market ValueHighest and Best UseMisconductVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardJudicial ReviewCPLR 7511Contract Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nabi v. Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC

Plaintiffs Mohammed Nabi and Rifat Rizvi brought an action against Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC and Airport Management Services, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for misclassifying managers and failing to pay overtime. Plaintiffs sought conditional collective certification for a nationwide class of various managerial employees. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' evidence was too localized to support a nationwide class and failed to demonstrate that the proposed class was

FLSANYLLConditional Collective CertificationClass ActionMisclassificationOvertime PayExempt EmployeesNon-Exempt EmployeesManagerial DutiesRetail Industry
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duane Reads Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union

Duane Reade Inc. sued Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and its officers for defamation following a heated labor dispute. The union had published allegedly libelous statements on a website, press releases, and flyers concerning Duane Reade's business practices and treatment of workers. Duane Reade contended that the union as a whole should be held accountable or, alternatively, that the officers acted outside their official capacities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, citing the long-standing New York rule from Martin v Curran, which requires unanimous member ratification for suits against unincorporated unions. Furthermore, the court determined that the cause of action was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the union's communications were related to a protected labor dispute and did not meet the malice standard required to overcome preemption, also noting the republication privilege.

DefamationLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityNational Labor Relations ActNLRA PreemptionMartin v CurranFreedom of SpeechLibelImplied AgencyNew York Law
References
12
Case No. CIV-81-518, CIV-81-548
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order by District Judge Elfvin addresses two arbitration awards involving Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Heinrich Motors, Inc. The unions sought to confirm the awards, while Heinrich sought to vacate or modify them. The specific issue before the court was Heinrich's removal of CIV-81-518 from New York state court to federal court. Judge Elfvin concluded that the motion to confirm the arbitrator's supplemental award was part of the original action commenced by Heinrich to vacate the initial award, and was thus untimely removed. Consequently, Local 435's motion to remand CIV-81-518 to state court was granted, and Heinrich's motion to consolidate CIV-81-518 and CIV-81-548 was denied.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActRemoval JurisdictionTimeliness of RemovalCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionMotion to RemandMotion to ConsolidateNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
13
Case No. 2003 NY Slip Op 23942
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale Dept. Store Union, UFCW, AFL-CIO

This case arises from a labor dispute between Duane Reade, Inc. (plaintiff) and Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (defendants). Duane Reade sued the union for trespass, tortious interference, fraud, and defamation, seeking $1.4 million in damages. The union moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead membership authorization for tortious acts and NLRA preemption of state claims. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the dismissal, finding that Duane Reade did not meet pleading requirements under Martin v Curran and that the state law claims were preempted by the NLRA, as the NLRB was already investigating related unfair labor practices. The court also denied Duane Reade's cross-motion to amend its complaint.

Labor LawUnion DisputeNLRA PreemptionTrespassTortious InterferenceFraudDefamationMotion to DismissCollective BargainingUnfair Labor Practices
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Plaintiff Leo I. Catz, operating Helene’s Retail Outlet, seeks a temporary injunction to prevent picketing by unnamed defendants (a union). The retail outlet is located in the same building as Helene Manufacturing Co., which performs manufacturing operations for Smart Sue, Inc., a 'struck' plant. The defendants concede their picketing targets both the manufacturer and the retail outlet. The central issue is whether the retail outlet is a separate entity or has a unity of interest with Helene Manufacturing Co., thereby making the picketing lawful. The court reviews evidence regarding shared premises, employees, and financial operations, suggesting an integrated business. Ultimately, the court denies the injunction, citing arguable federal pre-emption by the National Labor Relations Board due to the involvement of interstate commerce, thus limiting the state court's jurisdiction. The court also found the picketing to be reasonable, peaceful, and not misleading.

Labor disputePicketingInjunctionSecondary boycottUnity of interestFederal pre-emptionNational Labor Relations BoardRetail outletManufacturingJurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

Almonte v. Western Beef, Inc.

Ramon Almonte was injured in a workplace accident involving a garbage compactor and received workers’ compensation benefits as an employee of Western Beef, Inc. He and his wife later sued Western Beef, Western Beef Retail, Inc., and Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc., for personal injuries. Western Beef was dismissed due to workers' compensation exclusivity. Western Beef Retail and Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing worker's compensation bar or corporate dissolution, respectively. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment for Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc., as it was dissolved before the accident. The denial of summary judgment for Western Beef Retail was affirmed, as its alter ego argument was not properly raised and lacked sufficient evidence.

Personal injurySummary judgmentCorporate dissolutionAlter ego doctrineEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewConsolidated actionWorkplace accidentGarbage compactorExclusivity defense
References
10
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Super Markets, Inc. v. Liss

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 173 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