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. 11 CV 1471
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, participants in the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund Pension Plan, who challenged an amendment to the plan. This amendment eliminated the ability for participants no longer in covered employment to "age into" certain early retirement benefits (Plan C and Plan G). Plaintiffs alleged this violated Section 204(g) of ERISA, the anti-cutback rule, which protects accrued benefits. The Court, applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings, found that the Plan C and Plan G benefits are early retirement or retirement-type subsidies and thus accrued benefits under ERISA. Relying on statutory text and precedent like *Ahng v. Allsteel, Inc.*, the Court ruled that the amendment impermissibly cut back accrued benefits for those employees who had met the years of service requirement and could continue to age into their pension benefits even after separation from employment. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denied the defendants' motions.

ERISAPension PlanRetirement BenefitsAnti-cutback RuleEmployee BenefitsJudgment on the PleadingsDefined Benefit PlanEarly RetirementAccrued BenefitsPlan Amendment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01455
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2020

Mendez v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Juan Mendez, an employee of Liberty Contracting Corp., was allegedly injured while performing demolition work for Americon Construction, Inc. Americon sought summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim against Liberty, which the Supreme Court granted. Liberty cross-moved to dismiss the claim, which was denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying Americon's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim and otherwise affirming the order. The court found issues of fact regarding the existence and retroactivity of an indemnification agreement between Americon and Liberty, despite Liberty procuring insurance consistent with subsequently executed terms and conditions.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPurchase Order DisputesRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party PracticeAppellate DivisionIssues of FactDemolition AccidentsInsurance Coverage
References
7
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04932
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Mendez v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.

Guido Mendez, a foreman, was injured by a falling light fixture during asbestos removal and sued the general contractor, Vardaris Tech, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding the defendant lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order, denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the defendant failed to demonstrate the inapplicability or non-violation of relevant Industrial Code provisions or that such violations were not a proximate cause of the accident.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAsbestos RemovalIndustrial Code ViolationsFalling Object InjuryGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 20,472 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