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

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
Case No. ADJ8128134
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

ABRAHAM MERCADO vs. SUPER KING MARKETS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case involves Abraham Mercado's workers' compensation claim against Super King Markets and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order dismissing Mercado's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the grounds that the petition was filed untimely. The WCAB adopted the findings of the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalSuper King MarketsCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesUllico Insurance CompanyLiquidationAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. 532311
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Katherine King

Katherine King appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her reduced earnings awards after June 22, 2014. King sustained a work-related back injury in 2006 while employed by the Department of Corrections and concurrently as a waitress and baker, leading to reduced earnings awards based on her cumulative average weekly wage. She ceased working for the Department in 2014 due to an unrelated disability and had not worked since. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling that there was no basis to continue awards, as her retirement was unrelated to her disability and she failed to show reattachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division reversed and remitted the matter, finding the Board's reasoning incomplete regarding lost wages from her restaurant job and the need to demonstrate reattachment to the labor market, especially considering the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w).

Reduced EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardLabor Market AttachmentConcurrent EmploymentCausally Related Lost WagesDisability RetirementAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Claim of King v. Riccelli Enterprises

Claimant Laurence King, a truck driver, sustained neck and back injuries in April 2013 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market after being laid off in November 2013. A WCLJ later found reattachment to the labor market and awarded benefits with an 81% loss of wage-earning capacity. On review, the Board rescinded the reattachment finding and determined a permanent partial disability with a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding of no reattachment to the labor market due to insufficient job search efforts. However, the court reversed the Board's finding of a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity, concluding it was not supported by substantial medical evidence regarding functional ability and loss, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician ReportAppellate ReviewRemandSubstantial EvidenceVocational Factors
References
11
Case No. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 657034/2017
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2018

NSB Advisors, LLC v. C.L. King & Assoc., Inc.

Petitioner NSB Advisors, LLC sought to confirm a FINRA arbitration award against Respondent C.L. King & Associates, Inc., stemming from financial losses in 2011-2012. CL King cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Charles E. Ramos, reviewed the case under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), noting the extremely limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award. The court found CL King's arguments to be speculative and insufficient, and its failure to provide a complete arbitration record detrimental to its claim. Consequently, the court granted NSB's motion to confirm the award and denied CL King's cross-motion to vacate.

Arbitration AwardFINRAFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawVacaturConfirmationBreach of ContractFinancial LossesInvestment AdvisorBroker-Dealer
References
14
Case No. ADJ14904382
Regular
Apr 16, 2025

MARIA MORFIN vs. BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION DBA EL SUPER MARKET, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered and denied Maria Morfin's Petition for Removal against Bodega Latina Corporation DBA El Super Market and Safety National Insurance Company. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted, requiring substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and inadequacy of reconsideration as a remedy. The WCAB was not persuaded by the petitioner's arguments. Subsequently, the Board issued an order to correct a clerical error in the initial decision, specifically the omission of the service date, which was corrected to April 11, 2025.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationClerical ErrorDate of ServiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyDenying Removal
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07596
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

King v. Villette

Franklin King, a stucco worker, was injured after falling from a makeshift scaffold at a residential building owned by Gerald Villette. King, along with his wife, sued Villette, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1). On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and the portion of 241(6) related to Industrial Code § 23-1.16. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) due to conflicting accounts of the accident. Appeals related to a subsequent motion for leave to renew and/or reargue were dismissed or affirmed as reviewed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffolding SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDuty to Provide Safe WorkplaceProximate CauseIndustrial CodeWorker Safety
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,193 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