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. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Local Lodge 197, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers

The Secretary of Labor initiated this action against Local Lodge 197 for violating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The contention was that Lodge 197 denied member Charles McNally a reasonable opportunity to be a candidate for union office due to an unreasonable meeting attendance rule. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment, first confirming McNally had exhausted internal remedies. It then determined that Lodge 197's attendance rule, which disqualified a significant portion of its membership, was an unreasonable qualification under section 401(e) of the Act. Consequently, the court granted the Secretary's motion, voided the election, and ordered a new election under federal supervision, simultaneously denying Lodge 197's cross-motion.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsSummary JudgmentEligibility RulesMeeting AttendanceLMRDAStatutory InterpretationDemocratic ProcessesUnion OfficeFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lane v. Fort Neck Dredging Co.

The dissenting opinion, led by Herlihy, J., argues against the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that an employee's accident, occurring during travel to work, arose out of and in the course of his employment. The opinion emphasizes that the employee received a weekly allowance for lodging and meals, characterized as 'subsistence pay,' which was not compensation for travel. It further notes that the employee was not required to live in any particular place for the employer's benefit, nor was the lodging furnished by the employer or on the work site. The dissent distinguishes the present case from precedents where lodging was provided as compensation or for the employer's benefit, or in cases of temporary assignment, concluding that the employee was not within his employment during the travel and that the claim should therefore be reversed and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentTravel ExpensesSubsistence AllowanceEmployee LodgingWorkplace InjuryDissenting OpinionEmployment ContractOff-premises InjuryAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2013

Matter of Lodge v. Lodge

The father and mother, divorced parents, initially had joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother. Due to the mother's work schedule, the child spent considerable time with the father. The mother subsequently moved to Brooklyn and took the child, prompting the father to seek full custody, while the mother cross-petitioned for permission to relocate. Family Court awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father and specified visitation for the mother. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, concluding that the mother failed to prove that the proposed relocation was in the child's best interest and that the father demonstrated a superior ability to provide a stable environment.

CustodyRelocationBest Interest of ChildParental FitnessJoint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitationFamily Court AppealUlster CountyFinancial Stability
References
21
Case No. ADJ169349; ADJ4412540
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

VICTOR HERNANDEZ, SR. vs. SPORTSMAN'S LODGE RESTAURANT, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Victor Hernandez Sr. and his workers' compensation claim against Sportsman's Lodge Restaurant, Inc. and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hernandez's petition for reconsideration. This denial was based on the board adopting the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. The denial specifically notes that the petitioner was properly served with notices regarding a lien conference and a notice of intention to dismiss the lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportEAMSNotice of Lien ConferenceProof of ServiceNotice of IntentionDismiss LienApplicantDefendants
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 967 v. General Electric Co.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge No. 967 (Union) sued General Electric Company (GE) and Pow-erex, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court, Cayuga County, alleging age discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law. GE removed the action to federal court, asserting preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The federal court, presided over by Chief Judge McCURN, determined that the Union's state law age discrimination claims were not completely preempted by either federal statute. The court emphasized that the claims primarily arose under state law and did not fall within the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions for removal purposes. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case back to the New York State Supreme Court, Cayuga County.

Age DiscriminationState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemoval JurisdictionRemandNew York Human Rights LawAge Discrimination in Employment Act
References
21
Case No. SFO 0438557 SFO 0438562
Regular
May 05, 2008

LISA BURKE vs. WINTERLAND PRODUCTIONS, HARTFORD INDEMNITY & ACCIDENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether reimbursed expenses should be included in calculating an applicant's temporary disability indemnity rate. The Board reversed the prior award, ruling that reimbursed expenses for meals, lodging, and fuel are special expenses, not remuneration, and therefore should not be included in calculating the applicant's average weekly wage. The decision clarifies that such reimbursements do not constitute "advantages received by the injured employee as part of his remuneration" under Labor Code section 4454.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability IndemnityReimbursed ExpensesEarnings CalculationLabor Code Section 4454RemunerationSpecial ExpensesAverage Weekly WageCumulative TraumaConcert Tour Salesperson
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almeida v. Aguinaga

Plaintiff Elza Almeida sued defendants Carlos and Christina Aguinaga for overtime and “spread-of-hours” pay under the New York Labor Law, specifically for her work as a live-in domestic service employee from 1990 to December 2005. The Aguinagas moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court analyzed Almeida's claimed working hours, wages, and the applicable meal and lodging allowances under New York regulations. The court concluded that Almeida's claims for overtime pay from May 24, 2000, through December 2004, and for spread-of-hours pay from November 2001, through December 2004, should be dismissed because her total compensation, including allowances, met or exceeded the legally required amounts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Almeida’s spread-of-hours claim for the period between May 24, 2000, and June 2001, allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial. Other claims, such as breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, were not addressed in this motion.

Domestic Service EmployeeOvertime PaySpread-of-Hours PayNew York Labor LawMinimum WageMeal and Lodging AllowancesSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimsEmployment LawWage Order
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Kaleida Health

Six plaintiffs, including registered nurses and respiratory therapists, initiated a putative collective/class action against Kaleida Health and its associated entities. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages, overtime, and improper meal break deductions. The court addressed four motions: plaintiffs' class certification requests for meal break and rounding policies, and both parties' summary judgment motions. The judge denied all of the plaintiffs' motions and granted the defendants' motions, striking the rounding class certification, denying the meal break class certification, and largely granting summary judgment to Kaleida regarding certain NYLL claims for three plaintiffs. The court found no evidence of a uniform system-wide policy for wage violations and upheld the employer's right to delegate reporting procedures for missed meal breaks.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawClass ActionWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMeal Break PolicyRounding PolicySummary JudgmentClass CertificationHourly Employees
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 75 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