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. 11 Civ. 160
Regular Panel Decision

Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc.

Plaintiffs Mani Jacob and Lesleena Mars filed a class action lawsuit against Duane Reade, Inc. and Duane Reade Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They claim the defendants misclassified assistant store managers as exempt from overtime pay. The plaintiffs sought class certification for their NYLL claims. The court, presided over by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the motion for class certification, finding that the class satisfied all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The court concluded that common questions predominated over individual ones, making a class action the superior method of adjudication. Outten & Golden, LLP, Klafter Olsen & Lesser, and Gottlieb & Associates were appointed as class counsel.

Employment LawWage and Hour DisputeClass Action CertificationEmployee MisclassificationOvertime CompensationFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Rule 23(a) RequirementsRule 23(b)(3) RequirementsAssistant Store Managers (ASMs)
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 of the Retail

Duane Reade, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against Local 338 and its officers, arising from a labor dispute concerning a union affiliation campaign, alleging trespass, tortious interference with prospective business relations, fraud, and defamation. The conflict stemmed from two union affiliation elections for Duane Reade employees, with the employer accused of intimidation tactics, leading to a temporary injunction against the union for trespass. Subsequently, Local 338 filed unfair labor practice charges against Duane Reade with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Duane Reade failed to plead proper authorization for the union's alleged tortious acts, and that all state law claims were preempted by the NLRA. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all of Duane Reade's claims, finding them either deficient under the 'Martin v Curran' rule or preempted by the NLRA due to the ongoing NLRB investigation covering similar factual issues. Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend its complaint was also denied.

Labor DisputeUnion AffiliationTrespassNLRA PreemptionTortious InterferenceFraudDefamationUnfair Labor PracticesMartin v Curran RuleEmployer Tactics
References
37
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00340
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Walker (Read)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an order confirming an arbitration award that granted a 2% wage increase to firefighters represented by the Plattsburgh Permanent Fireman's Association. The City of Plattsburgh, designated as a fiscally eligible municipality, challenged the award, arguing it violated public policy by exacerbating its financial distress and exceeded the arbitration panel's authority. The court, however, found no strong and well-defined public policy precluding the award. It noted that the arbitration panel had complied with Civil Service Law § 209 by assigning the required 70% weight to the municipality's ability to pay. The court declined to reweigh statutory factors or engage in extensive fact-finding, concluding there was no basis to vacate the arbitration award on public policy grounds.

Arbitration AwardWage DisputePublic Sector LaborCollective BargainingFiscal DistressMunicipal FinancePublic Policy ExceptionAppellate ReviewCivil Service LawFirefighters Union
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. 17 NY3d 238
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Jarrod Brown

Judge Read's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of CPL 440.46, as amended by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2011. The majority expanded resentencing eligibility to include parolees due to a name change from 'Department of Correctional Services' to 'Department of Corrections and Community Supervision'. Read contends that this amendment was merely a technical change reflecting an agency merger, not a substantive legislative intent to broaden resentencing relief, which should remain limited to incarcerated persons as per the original 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The dissent emphasizes that statutory text should be interpreted within its context, highlighting that the 2011 amendment was part of an article VII budget bill for restructuring and technical corrections, not substantive law changes. Therefore, Read believes the legislature did not intend to expand the ameliorative sweep of the provision.

Resentencing EligibilityCPL 440.46Drug Law Reform ActParoleesIncarcerated PersonsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentChapter 62 Laws of 2011Technical AmendmentSubstantive Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp.

This case addresses whether delivery workers for Duane Reade, hired by Hudson/Chelsea defendants, were independent contractors or employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs, led by Faty Ansoumana, alleged they were employees and sought unpaid minimum wages and overtime. Judge Hellerstein applied an 'economic reality' test, concluding that the delivery workers were indeed employees of the Hudson/Chelsea defendants. Furthermore, the court found Duane Reade to be a 'joint employer' alongside the Hudson/Chelsea defendants, making both jointly and severally liable for violations concerning foot delivery workers assigned to Duane Reade stores between January 13, 1994, and March 26, 2000. Rulings for other delivery worker groups and the period after March 26, 2000, were deferred for further discovery.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Minimum Wage ActJoint EmploymentIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee MisclassificationPartial Summary JudgmentDelivery WorkersOutsourcing LiabilityRetail IndustryWage and Hour Disputes
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Quinto

The dissenting opinion by Judge Read argues that the second count of indictment against Santos Quinto for second-degree rape, occurring between July and August 2002, is time-barred. This stems from the interpretation of CPL 30.10 (3) (f), which extends the statute of limitations for child sex crimes until the child turns 18 or the offense is reported to law enforcement, whichever occurs earlier. Judge Read contends that a social worker's report to the police in November 2002 regarding 14-year-old Jane's rape and pregnancy claim, even if later retracted by Jane and deemed consensual by the police, qualifies as a "report to a law enforcement agency." The dissent emphasizes that the reporting exception aims to prevent unduly delayed prosecutions and minimize the risk of erroneous convictions. Judge Read concludes that the majority's interpretation effectively writes the reporting exception out of the statute. The overall order of the main decision was affirmed.

Criminal Procedure LawChild Sexual AbuseStatute of LimitationsRape Second DegreeReporting ExceptionPregnancy AllegationPolice InvestigationFalse ProsecutionsEvidence FreshnessVictim Disclosure
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 111 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