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. 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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03262 [149 AD3d 654]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Stein v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

This case involves a claim of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention following the murder of Linda Stein by her assistant, Natavia Lowery. Lowery was an employee of Axion, a temp agency, and was placed as an assistant to Stein, an independent contractor for Douglas Elliman, LLC (DE-LLC). The court found that Axion was not liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention because it had no prior notice of Lowery's violent propensities. Additionally, Douglas Elliman, LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted as Lowery was not considered a special employee of DE-LLC, and DE-LLC did not exercise supervision or control over her work.

Negligent HiringNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeVicarious LiabilityAssaultMurderTemp AgencyIndependent Contractor
References
3
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 03086
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2021

People v. Stein

Defendant Jacob Stein appealed two orders: one from July 2018 classifying him as a risk level three sex offender and sexual predator, and another from August 2019 denying his application for reclassification. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the July 2018 order by deleting the sexual predator designation, affirming it as modified. The court rejected Stein's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding counsel's actions prudent. The August 2019 order, which denied reclassification, was affirmed, as Stein failed to provide clear and convincing evidence for modification, with the court noting issues with a psychiatrist's preliminary findings that lacked supporting data. The court found no abuse of discretion in the County Court's decisions.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationSexual Predator DesignationIneffective Assistance of CounselPedophilia DisorderMental Health EvaluationReclassification ApplicationClear and Convincing EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04212 [240 AD3d 1080]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2025

Matter of Stein v. DiNapoli

Kristin Stein applied for accidental disability retirement benefits due to psychological injuries from a workplace assault, but her application was denied for failing to provide timely notice as required by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 (c). The Hearing Officer and respondent upheld the denial, determining that Stein did not provide written notice within 90 days of the January 2019 incident. The court rejected arguments that actual employer knowledge or a later diagnosis constituted exceptions to the statutory notice rule. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the respondent's decision, dismissing Stein's petition and affirming the strict application of the notice requirements.

Accidental Disability RetirementStatutory Notice RequirementPsychological InjuriesWorkplace AssaultRetirement and Security LawCPLR Article 78Timely NoticeGood Cause ExceptionWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Review
References
8
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Primex International Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

In this case, Primex International Corporation sought to compel Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated to arbitrate disputes arising from their 1990 and 1993 service agreements, following Wal-Mart's lawsuit against Primex in Arkansas alleging fraud and breach of contract. The core issue was whether a general merger clause in a subsequent 1995 agreement, which lacked an arbitration clause, superseded the arbitration obligations from the earlier agreements. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division initially denied Primex's petition, finding the 1995 agreement's merger clause retroactively eliminated arbitration obligations. However, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that the merger clause did not nullify the duty to arbitrate disputes specifically arising from the 1990 and 1993 agreements. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court to determine which claims were arbitrable under the earlier contracts.

Arbitration ClauseMerger ClauseContract DisputeParol Evidence RuleRetroactive EffectContract TerminationExclusivity AgreementBuying AgentBreach of ContractFraud Allegations
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 140 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