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

Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Everest National Insurance Company concerning its duty to defend and indemnify Schimenti Construction Corporation, Best Buy, Inc., and Dame Contracting, Inc., in a personal injury action. The underlying plaintiff, an employee of Dame, sustained injuries on a construction site. Schimenti and Best Buy, a general contractor and property owner, were allegedly not named as additional insureds on Dame's policy with Everest, despite a contractual requirement. All parties involved failed to provide timely notice of the accident to Everest. The Supreme Court initially denied Everest's cross-motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court granted Everest's cross-motion, ruling that the failure to provide timely notice vitiated the insurance contract and that the reasons for delay were unreasonable. Consequently, Everest was determined to have no obligation to defend or indemnify the other parties.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSubcontractor LiabilityAdditional InsuredsPersonal InjuryLate Notice Defense
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. ADJ850295 (GRO 0035125)
Regular
May 24, 2010

Corey Abel vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Best Buy's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's order closing discovery and setting trial. Defendant Best Buy argued the judge erred by closing discovery before a crucial deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Strait, which was scheduled to clarify inconsistencies and permanent disability opinions. The Board found the deposition necessary for a complete record and to facilitate a fair decision or potential settlement. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including completion of the AME's deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorDepositionClosing DiscoveryRescind OrderLumbar Spine InjuryStock ClerkPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentUnorthodox Basis
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Case No. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1996

Claim of La Rosa v. IBM Corp.

The claimant, a senior program manager, experienced two work-related heart attacks in 1988 and 1989. After his second heart attack, he returned to work and later accepted a voluntary buy-out retirement package in July 1992. Approximately 16 months later, he sought to reopen his workers' compensation case, contending his retirement was involuntary due to his disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, determining he had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant accepted a financially advantageous buy-out during employer downsizing and had performed his job without medical restrictions prior to retirement.

Workers’ Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketHeart Attack InjuryEarly Retirement Buy-OutEmployer DownsizingMedical Restrictions AbsenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionDisability Claim DenialClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2010

Coaxum v. Metcon Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured after being pushed by a coworker and falling into an open hole while working on premises owned by defendant 200 West 26, LLC and leased by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. On appeal, the order was modified to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims because defendants did not supervise plaintiff's work. Additionally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed to the extent it relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1), as the accident area was a work area, not a passageway. However, questions of fact remain regarding the existence, size, and depth of the hole for Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1).

Summary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial CodeFalling HazardWork AreaPassagewayIntervening ActSuperseding Cause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1984

Klein v. Jamor Purveyors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the enforceability of an alleged oral modification to a written corporate shareholders' agreement. The original agreement, between Jack Klein (decedent), Michael Jacobson, and Jamor Purveyors, Inc., stipulated a $55,000 buy-out price for a deceased shareholder's stock. The plaintiff, as executrix of Klein's estate, claimed an oral agreement increased this buy-out price to $155,000. Special Term dismissed the claims, asserting the oral modification was barred by the Statute of Frauds and a clause in the original agreement requiring written modifications. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, ruling that the alleged oral agreement fell within the Statute of Frauds and that the plaintiff's arguments regarding memoranda, partial performance, and equitable estoppel were insufficient to satisfy the statute or overcome its provisions. The court also upheld the interpretation that the agreement's modification clause precluded oral changes.

oral agreementStatute of Fraudsshareholders' agreementcorporate buy-outcontract modificationpart performanceequitable estoppelAppellate DivisionCPLRGeneral Obligations Law
References
13
Case No. ADJ230381 (LBO 0286709)
Regular
May 27, 2011

FREDDIE MOSBY vs. BEST BUY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's appeal of a prior award. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's cervical spine, lumbar spine, and psyche. However, the Board struck the QME reports of Drs. Smith, Aval, and O'Brien due to their reliance on excluded evidence related to an improperly excluded Agreed Medical Examiner's reports. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including potential new medical evaluations and a revised decision regarding temporary and permanent disability.

Sub-rosa filmsmalicious prosecutionworkers' compensation exclusivityimpermissible ex parte communicationsAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examinerapportionmentpsychiatric injury compensabilitypredominant causesubstantial evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 31 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