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. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
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 Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nigberg v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers of the International Union of America

This case addresses a motion for a temporary injunction. The court's decision was to deny the motion, but this denial was conditional. The defendants were required to bring the action to trial during the February term. Failure to do so would result in the temporary injunction motion being granted. The judges present for this decision included Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Kelby, and Young, JJ.

Temporary InjunctionConditional DenialMotion PracticeCourt OrderJudicial Panel
References
0
Case No. ADJ8982231
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

CATHERINE BIGGAR vs. SAKS INCORPORATED, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and denied the claim for lodging reimbursement. The Board found that there was no substantial medical evidence demonstrating that temporary hotel lodging was reasonably required to cure or relieve the applicant from her foot injury. The applicant's own testimony was insufficient to establish medical necessity for the lodging. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement for her hotel stay.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryRight Foot InjurySales AssociateTemporary LodgingMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600Substantial Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Muscular Dystrophy Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Weyl

A nationally recognized voluntary health organization, dedicated to muscular dystrophy research and patient support, sought a temporary injunction against a competing organization, the National Foundation for Muscular Dystrophy, Inc., and an individual defendant. The individual, a former regional director of the plaintiff, was accused of copying and transferring the plaintiff's volunteer worker database to the defendant corporation. This action reportedly caused significant confusion among volunteers, many of whom unknowingly began soliciting for the defendant while believing they were still working for the plaintiff. The court found these actions detrimental to the public and the plaintiff's cause, leading to the granting of a temporary injunction during the litigation, with specific exceptions.

Temporary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionEmployee MisconductVolunteer RecordsData TransferNonprofit OrganizationsHealth ResearchPublic SolicitationMuscular DystrophyOrganizational Dispute
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Metallic Lathers & Reinforced Concrete Steel Workers Union

The acting regional director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against Local 46, Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO. The NLRB alleged the union unlawfully picketed Prefabricated Concrete, Inc., to compel the assignment of metal work to its members rather than to employees represented by a certified union, Local 3127. Despite the union's claim of informational picketing regarding wages, the court found reasonable cause that the picketing's true object was an unlawful work assignment dispute under the National Labor Relations Act. The picketing severely disrupted concrete deliveries to Prefabricated. The petition for the temporary injunction was granted, restraining the union from picketing during business hours.

Labor DisputeUnfair Labor PracticeWork Assignment DisputePicketingTemporary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnion CertificationCollective BargainingPrevailing Wage
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1957

General Iron Corp. v. Livingston

Plaintiff, a wrought iron furniture manufacturer, secured a three-year collective bargaining agreement with Allied Trades Local 18 in May 1957. In August 1957, District 65, Eetail, Wholesale and Department Store Workers Union, AFL-CIO, demanded the plaintiff void this contract and sign with them, which the plaintiff refused. Subsequently, District 65 allegedly incited about 17 employees to strike and picket since September 4, 1957, leading to blocked premises, intimidation, and delivery disruptions. Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction, arguing a misleading rival union dispute causing irreparable harm. Defendants asserted Local 18's contract was collusive. Citing Metzger Co. v. Fay, the court found insufficient evidence to refute the existing contract's validity, thus granting the temporary injunction to preserve the status quo. The case was then scheduled for trial before a Special Referee on September 30, 1957.

Temporary InjunctionLabor DisputeRival UnionPicketingCollective Bargaining AgreementSweetheart Contract AllegationPresumption of Contract ValidityIrreparable HarmStatus QuoJudicial Discretion
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,092 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