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. 02 Civ.0032 VM
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2004

Campanella v. MASON TENDERS'DIST. COUNCIL PENSION

The Campanella brothers, retired participants, sued the Mason Tenders' District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging multiple ERISA violations regarding pension benefit accrual, vesting standards, and credit for workers' compensation. They challenged the Plan's accrual ranges, anti-backloading provisions, and the policy regarding service credit during disability. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, finding that the Plan adhered to ERISA requirements on all substantive points, including minimum accrual standards and vesting. Additionally, claims for interest on delayed benefits and penalties against the Trustees for document production were denied, with the court concluding that no unreasonable delay or bad faith was demonstrated.

ERISAPension BenefitsDisability PensionAccrued BenefitsVesting StandardsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationFiduciary DutyPlan Administration
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2001

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Thomasen Construction Co.

The case involved a dispute between the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund and Mason Tenders District Council (plaintiffs) and Thomsen Construction Company, Inc., along with its owner, Stephen Thomsen (defendants). While Thomsen Construction conceded liability for failing to make contributions to the Funds, the central issue was whether Stephen Thomsen could be held personally liable. The court applied New York law concerning an agent's personal liability, which requires clear and explicit evidence of intent to assume personal liability, and considered factors such as contract negotiation and the signatory's role. The court found that the personal liability clause was not negotiated, and Thomsen signed in his official capacity as president, intending to avoid personal liability through incorporation. Consequently, the court ruled that Stephen Thomsen was not personally liable, entering judgment in his favor, although judgment was entered against Thomsen Construction, Inc.

Labor LawEmployee BenefitsERISALMRACorporate LiabilityPiercing the Corporate VeilContract LawAgency LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. 12-CV-4550 (JFB)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2014

Anderson v. National Grid, PLC

Plaintiff Michael Anderson filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, National Grid, PLC, and Robert DeMarinis, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Anderson claimed he was denied reasonable accommodation for his spondylolisthesis, discriminatorily discharged, and retaliated against for requesting a transfer. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all federal ADA claims, concluding that Anderson failed to establish a disability under the ADA or demonstrate that discrimination motivated his termination. The Court subsequently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law NYSHRL claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)SpondylolisthesisReasonable AccommodationDiscriminatory DischargeRetaliationSummary JudgmentFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56Employer Misconduct Investigation
References
102
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabol v. Cable & Wireless PLC

Plaintiff Andrew Sabol sued Cable & Wireless PLC (C&W PLC) for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL), alleging wrongful discharge in 2002. C&W PLC sought summary judgment, claiming exemption as a foreign employer under the ADEA and arguing it was not an "employer" under the HRL. The court examined whether C&W PLC and its subsidiary C&W USA should be considered a single employer or if C&W PLC was Sabol's true employer, applying established legal tests. Significant factual disputes remained regarding the control and supervision of Sabol's employment. Consequently, the court denied C&W PLC's motion for summary judgment, allowing both claims to proceed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentForeign Employer ExemptionHuman Rights LawParent Company LiabilitySubsidiaryIntegrated Enterprise TestEmployer-Employee RelationshipADEA
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC

Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays Bank PLC, alleging market manipulation in electricity index prices, violating federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and New York's unjust enrichment law. Barclays moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Merced had standing and that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. The motion was granted for the Section 1 Sherman Act claim due to a lack of alleged concerted action, and for the unjust enrichment claim due to the absence of a direct relationship between the parties. However, the motion was denied for the Section 2 Sherman Act monopolization claim and the UCL claim, allowing those to proceed. Merced was given leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Antitrust LawMarket ManipulationElectricity MarketsSherman Act Section 1Sherman Act Section 2California Unfair Competition LawUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment
References
85
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05844 [198 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Morley v. BPP St Owner, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a seven-year-old child, JM, who sustained a thumb injury at an ice skating rink due to an alleged defect in the dasher boards. The child's parent, Risa Morley, filed a negligence action against BPP St Owner, LLC and IRE Crown Rinks, LLC, alleging negligent ownership, operation, and control of the rink, including negligent supervision and maintenance, and sought damages for post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating the claims for negligent assembly and maintenance of the dasher boards and the derivative loss of society. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent supervision and PTSD claims, finding insufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact.

NegligenceIce Skating RinkDasher BoardsSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryPTSDNegligent MaintenanceAppellate ReviewChild Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M & M Contracting & Consulting

The plaintiffs, a group of Mason Tenders District Council Funds and associated entities, along with the Union and its managers, sued M & M Contracting & Consulting and its president, Michael T. Moscato, Jr. The suit, brought under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, sought to compel defendants to fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations regarding monetary contributions, reports, dues checkoffs, and NYLPAC contributions. Following the defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered against them. The defendants subsequently moved to vacate this judgment, citing excusable neglect due to their attorney's negligence, a meritorious defense, and a lack of personal jurisdiction over Moscato. The District Court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that their default was willful and dilatory, their defense lacked merit, and personal jurisdiction over Moscato was properly established according to N.Y.C.P.L.R.

Default JudgmentMotion to VacateExcusable NeglectAttorney MalpracticeMeritorious DefensePersonal JurisdictionERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsDues Checkoff
References
10
Case No. 909 F.Supp. 882
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1995

United States v. Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater NY

The United States and the Secretary of Labor sought partial summary judgment against James Lupo and Joseph Fater, former trustees of the Mason Tenders District Council’s Pension and Welfare Funds, alleging ERISA violations. The defendants were accused of breaching their fiduciary duties through imprudent real estate investments in New York and Florida, specifically by purchasing properties at inflated prices without proper investigation or required expert advice. The Court granted the Government's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Lupo and Fater failed to act as prudent fiduciaries. Additionally, the Court denied Fater's cross-motion for summary judgment and subsequently denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration, which included a waived statute of limitations defense. This decision affirmed the trustees' liability for their failure to adequately manage the trust funds.

ERISA violationsFiduciary duty breachPension fund mismanagementWelfare fund investmentsSummary judgmentReal estate investmentsTrustee liabilityPrudent person standardStatute of limitations defenseReconsideration denied
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Microtech Contracting Corp. v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York

Plaintiff Microtech Contracting Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants, including the Mason Tenders District Council and Local 78, from displaying an inflatable rat at its work sites. Microtech argued this conduct violated a 'no-strike' provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The District Court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the underlying labor dispute was not subject to mandatory arbitration as per the CBA. The court also held that Section 104 of the Act specifically prohibits injunctions against publicizing labor disputes by non-fraudulent or non-violent means. Furthermore, the court determined that even if jurisdiction existed, the use of the inflatable rat was protected First Amendment speech and did not fall under the 'disruptive activity' clause of the CBA, which was interpreted to apply only to actions similar to work stoppages.

labor disputepreliminary injunctionNorris-LaGuardia Actcollective bargaining agreementFirst Amendmentinflatable ratunion protestno-strike clausearbitrabilityjurisdiction
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 101 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