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. No. 50; No. 51
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

John Kuzmich v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition, LLC, William T. West v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether apartments in buildings receiving tax benefits under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g are subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Court concluded that they are not, reversing the Appellate Division's decisions in two consolidated cases, John Kuzmich, et al. v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, and William T. West, et al. v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC, et al. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of RPTL 421-g (6), particularly its "notwithstanding" clause, which the Court found unambiguously subjects such units to full rent control, overriding conflicting RSL provisions for luxury deregulation during the benefit period. The Court rejected arguments from the defendants and the dissenting opinion that legislative intent and the lack of an explicit exemption in the RSL for 421-g buildings indicated the applicability of luxury decontrol. This decision ensures that apartments in buildings receiving 421-g benefits remain subject to rent stabilization protections.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DeregulationRPTL 421-g benefitsReal Property Tax LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentLower Manhattan Revitalization PlanRent Regulation Reform ActAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04032 [139 AD3d 1029]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2016

Pazmino v. 41-50 78th Street Corp.

The plaintiff, Jose Pazmino, allegedly sustained injuries while working on a renovation project and was struck on the head by a piece of wood. He subsequently filed an action to recover damages and moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the defendant 41-50 78th Street Corp., the property owner. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Pazmino's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Pazmino failed to establish a prima facie case that the falling object was due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device or that his injuries were proximately caused by a statutory violation, particularly as he did not witness the wood falling.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Falling ObjectSummary JudgmentPrima Facie BurdenSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate DivisionProperty Owner
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05503 [242 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

Gomez-Jimenez v. 50 W. Dev., LLC

The plaintiff, Leonidas Gomez-Jimenez, a laborer for a subcontractor, was injured when a piece of plywood fell from the ceiling and struck him while he was sweeping debris at a construction site. He sued 50 West Development, LLC, and others, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on that issue. However, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision, granting the defendants' motion and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, but reversing the grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether the area was normally exposed to falling objects.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationFalling ObjectsConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentRenewal and ReargumentAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50

Pathmark, an employer, initiated a lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342 50, a labor union, due to an ongoing labor dispute. The core of Pathmark's complaint alleged breach of contract and various tortious acts by the Union, stemming from disagreements over the interpretation and application of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The central legal question before the court was whether Pathmark's claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the CBA, as the Union contended that the grievance and arbitration procedures were exclusively for employees. Applying the strong presumption of arbitrability in labor law, the court meticulously analyzed Article XXIII of the CBA, concluding that its broad language encompassed employer-initiated disputes despite the primary focus on employee grievances. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to dismiss Pathmark's federal contract claims, compelling arbitration, and subsequently declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Labor disputeArbitrationCollective bargaining agreementEmployer claimsUnion rightsGrievance procedureArbitrabilitySecond CircuitMotion to dismissFederal court jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 73 Civ. 1329, 73 Civ. 2141
Regular Panel Decision

Ward Foods, Inc. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO

The plaintiffs, Ward Foods, Inc. and Ward Baking Company, Inc., initiated two actions seeking a declaratory judgment that no valid arbitration agreement existed with the defendant, Local 50, under the National Labor Relations Act and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The defendant responded with a general denial and petitioned the court to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. It was determined that the 1970/72 collective bargaining agreement, which included an arbitration clause, had been validly terminated by the union on September 30, 1972, through a 60-day notice. Consequently, issues that arose after this termination date, such as severance pay and welfare/pension fund contributions, were not subject to the lapsed arbitration agreement. The court also clarified that oral agreements were insufficient to compel arbitration, emphasizing the statutory requirement for a written agreement. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment, confirming the absence of a written contract compelling arbitration, and denied the defendant's petition.

National Labor Relations ActArbitration AgreementCollective BargainingContract TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentLabor DisputeWritten Agreement RequirementOral Agreement EnforceabilitySeverance Pay DisputePension Fund Contributions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union v. Local 3, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union

The case concerns a dispute between the Local 50 Health Benefits Fund and the Local 3 Welfare Fund following Local 3's assumption of collective bargaining duties for Entenmann's employees. Local 50 sought reimbursement for insurance premiums and welfare contributions, arguing they were retrospective payments. The court denied Local 50's claim, determining contributions were prospective. Conversely, Local 3 and Entenmann's counterclaimed for a share of reserves held by Local 50, alleging a structural violation of the LMRA. The court found jurisdiction and granted summary judgment to Local 3, ordering the transfer of $459,251 in reserves from Local 50 Fund. However, the final transfer is contingent on a further hearing to ensure equitable distribution among beneficiaries.

Union FundsWelfare BenefitsLabor LawEmployee BenefitsFund AdministrationLMRA Section 302Structural DefectsSummary JudgmentEquitable RemediesInter-union Dispute
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1958

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. A. D. Lewis

The case involves an interpleader action brought by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company concerning union dues collected from its employees. Rival claims for these funds were made by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and an "Organizing Committee" formed by disaffiliating members of Local 12915. The core dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the disaffiliation and the validity of District 50's claim to the local's assets and checked-off dues. The court ultimately ruled in favor of District 50 and the temporary administrator of Local 12915, upholding the existing collective bargaining agreement and union constitution. The cross-claim by the "Organizing Committee" was dismissed, and the plaintiff was discharged from liability.

InterpleaderUnion Dues DisputeLabor Union DisaffiliationCollective BargainingProperty Rights of UnionsTemporary AdministrationNational Labor Relations BoardContract FrustrationDue ProcessTrade Union Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union

The case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Arnold Bakers, Inc. against Local 50 of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America (A.F. of L.). Arnold Bakers, Inc. sought to prevent the union from picketing its plant, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The petitioner contended that the picketing aimed to induce a strike or concerted refusal to handle goods, thereby forcing recognition of Local 50 despite another union being certified. However, the court found no evidence that the picketing had successfully encouraged any strike or work stoppage by employees or a secondary boycott by other employers. Consequently, the court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the union's actions, while potentially irritating, did not constitute an enjoinable unfair labor practice under the specific section cited.

Labor disputePicketingUnfair labor practicePreliminary injunctionLabor Management Relations ActSecondary boycottCollective bargainingUnion recognitionEmployer-employee relationsNational Labor Relations Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Plaintiffs Rishe and Regan sued District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and eight individual representatives, alleging a breach of a collective bargaining agreement for condoning their wrongful discharge and termination of employment without proper cause. The original complaints, based on diversity of citizenship, were dismissed. Amended complaints asserted jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 102 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court denied District 50's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding a valid cause of action under Section 301. However, the motion of the individual Representatives to dismiss was granted, as Section 301(b) precludes enforcing judgments against a labor organization's members individually.

Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful DischargeUnion Duty to EnforceJurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor Organization LiabilityIndividual Representative LiabilityBreach of Contract
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 488 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