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
Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2013

Joseph v. HDMJ Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiff Germelia Joseph sued HDMJ Restaurant, Inc. and its owners for discrimination under ADA, Title VII, NYHRL, and New York Labor Law. After initial dismissals of some claims and individual defendants, HDMJ failed to retain counsel, leading to a default. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson recommended granting default judgment in part for Title VII claims (hostile work environment and retaliation) and denying it for ADA claims, finding no disability under the ADA. District Judge Seybert adopted the R&R, awarding Plaintiff $10,650.00 in back pay, prejudgment interest, $30,000.00 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, and $4,371.75 in attorney's fees. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Title VII discriminationADA claimsHostile work environmentRetaliationDefault judgmentEmotional distress damagesBack payPre-judgment interestAttorney's feesEmployment discrimination
References
136
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lama v. SPK Restaurant, Inc.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits due to respiratory injuries sustained while cleaning up after the 9/11 attacks in New York City. The Workers' Compensation Board identified SPK Restaurant, Inc. as the employer and awarded benefits. SPK and its carrier appealed, contending a lack of substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship. The court found that claimant consistently identified John Gelestathis as his employer, and there was no evidence in the record to establish employment by SPK. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipSubstantial Evidence9/11 CleanupRespiratory InjuryRemittalAppealNew YorkSPK Restaurant IncJohn Gelestathis
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00009 [234 AD3d 1037]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2025

Burgos v. Darden Rests., Inc.

Jose Burgos was injured while demolishing a walk-in freezer at an Olive Garden restaurant in Broome County. He initiated a lawsuit against Darden Restaurants, Inc., Feinberg-Harris Properties, LLC, N and D Restaurants, LLC, and Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing other claims. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion in part. Plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, based on a supplemental expert affidavit, was granted by the Supreme Court, but it adhered to its original determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion, finding that defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and whether plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division also reversed the Supreme Court's decision to grant plaintiff's motion to renew, ruling that there was no reasonable justification for the delayed submission of new facts.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentMotion to RenewExpert TestimonyElevation-related hazardProximate CauseContributory NegligenceDemolition AccidentConstruction Safety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc. (In Re Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc.)

The debtor-appellant, Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc., appealed an order from the Bankruptcy Court dated December 8, 1995. The Bankruptcy Court's order directed the Office of the United States Trustee to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee as a sanction for the appellant’s contempt. The contempt arose from the debtor's failure to produce its 1994 banquet book, which the court found was intentionally concealed or destroyed after a subpoena was served. The District Court affirmed the appointment of the trustee, despite finding the Bankruptcy Court improperly imposed a criminal contempt sanction. The affirmance was based on the Bankruptcy Court's inherent powers to sanction abuses of the judicial process, citing ample factual justification due to the debtor's untrustworthiness and mismanagement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Trustee AppointmentContempt of CourtSpoliation of EvidenceInherent Judicial PowersDiscovery SanctionsFiduciary DutyDebtor in PossessionAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24299 [4 Misc 3d 974]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2004

Themed Rests., Inc. v. Zagat Survey, LLC

Themed Restaurants, Inc., operating as Lucky Cheng's, sued Zagat Survey, LLC for libel, trade libel, and negligence, challenging a negative review in the 2004 NYC Restaurant Survey. The plaintiff alleged a 35% business drop post-publication, attributing it to the survey's low food rating and critical anonymous consumer comments about the restaurant's theme and offerings. The court considered whether survey-based reviews, utilizing anonymous opinions and numerical ratings, constituted protected opinion or actionable defamation. Ultimately, the court ruled that the review's statements and ratings were subjective opinions, not false statements of fact, and therefore protected by free speech principles. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to meet the pleading specificity requirement for constitutional malice. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted.

DefamationLibelTrade LibelRestaurant ReviewFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechConstitutional MaliceActual MalicePleading SpecificityConsumer Surveys
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DAR & Associates, Inc. v. Uniforce Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of DAR & Associates, Inc., its principals, and D.A.R. Temps, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against Uniforee Services, Inc. The core of the action sought a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants and a liquidated damages provision in their contracts were unenforceable under New York law, alongside a breach of contract claim. In addressing cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court found Uniforee possessed legitimate business interests warranting the protection of the restrictive covenants, deeming them reasonable in duration and geographic scope. Furthermore, the court upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, concluding that actual damages were difficult to ascertain at the time of contract and the agreed-upon sum was reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, effectively validating the contractual provisions at issue.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementLicensing AgreementUnfair Competition
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flood v. Carlson Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of former tipped employees, brought a collective action against Carlson Restaurants Inc., Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc., and T.G.I. Friday’s Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage laws. Defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas and to partially dismiss the FLSA minimum wage claim, which was based on the 'twenty percent rule' concerning non-tipped duties. The court denied the motion to transfer, deferring to the plaintiffs' choice of the Southern District of New York as a forum and finding factors like witness convenience and locus of operative facts to be neutral. Furthermore, the court denied the motion to dismiss, upholding the validity of the twenty percent rule as a reasonable interpretation by the Department of Labor and finding the plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to state a claim.

FLSANYLLWage and Hour LawTipped EmployeesTip CreditTwenty Percent RuleMotion to Transfer VenueMotion to DismissCollective ActionFederal Labor Law
References
51
Case No. Docket # 7
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. v. Union City Contractors, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. against Union City Contractors, Inc. for unpaid debris removal services, and a Miller Act claim against Union City's sureties, Nova Casualty Company and Nova American Groups, Inc. After a bench trial in January 2008, Union City filed for bankruptcy, leading to an automatic stay on claims against them. The court, however, proceeded with Empire's Miller Act claim against Nova. The primary dispute concerned the quantity of debris removed, with Empire claiming 11,470 cubic yards. The court found Empire's evidence credible and rejected Nova's fraud defense, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Empire against Nova for $84,653.63, plus prejudgment interest.

Miller Act claimPayment bondBreach of contractSurety liabilityFederal public works projectDebris removalCubic yardage disputePrejudgment interestAttorney's fees deniedFraud affirmative defense
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 10,064 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