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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2002

Bernstein v. the MONY Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Anne L. Bernstein sued her former employer, The MONY Group, Inc., and several individual employees, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion, finding that many federal claims were time-barred and that plaintiff failed to establish a continuing violation or adequately plead her Equal Pay Act claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and local law claims, dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety, but allowing plaintiff twenty days to seek leave to amend.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Continuing ViolationTime-barred Claims
References
27
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05840
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2022

Exley v. Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff, Bruce Exley, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from a defective ladder while attempting to repair a leak on a roof owned by the defendant, Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc. Exley, who lived rent-free on the property in exchange for maintenance, brought an action against the defendant, citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that the ladder was defective and improperly secured, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and a proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Proximate CauseSafety DevicesDefective LadderAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedman

This case examines whether claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits for a week in July during which they received vacation pay from their employer. The court references a previous decision, *Matter of Miranda* (Catherwood), which allowed such benefits under certain conditions. However, the court highlights that subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law was amended in 1963 specifically to correct inequities and prevent employees from receiving both vacation pay and unemployment benefits for the same period. Despite the board's finding that the union agreement did not designate a vacation period, the court interpreted the agreement's clauses as designating the first week in July for vacation. The court concluded that upholding the board's original decision would undermine the legislative intent of the 1963 amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVacation PayLabor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCollective Bargaining AgreementBoard Decision ReversalRemandWorkers' RightsEmployer Obligations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braun v. Carey

This case involves an appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion to vacate a summary judgment previously granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for legal services, and the defendants initially denied retainer and services, though their answer contained an inadvertent admission. After the plaintiff obtained summary judgment, the defendants sought to vacate it, arguing they were denied the opportunity to respond to late-served reply affidavits and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the retainer and the extent of services. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to vacate, but the appellate court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact were indeed present, making summary judgment inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to vacate the original order and allowed them leave to serve an amended answer.

AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to VacateAmended AnswerTriable Issues of FactLegal ServicesRetainer AgreementProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewCivil Practice Rules
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2001

AIU Insurance v. Empire Insurance

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 seeking to vacate arbitration awards. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the petition. Upon appeal, the higher court modified the order to include a provision confirming the awards, and as modified, affirmed the order. The appellate court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid basis to vacate the arbitration awards, thus upholding the denial of the application to vacate, while also noting that the awards should have been confirmed by the lower court.

ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Vacate AwardsAppealSupreme CourtOrder ModifiedAwards ConfirmedNew York LawJudicial ReviewAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kergosien v. Ocean Energy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Seagull Energy to vacate an arbitral award. Seagull Energy had amended its management stability plan, which provided severance benefits, to exclude employees who retained their jobs after their divisions were sold during a merger with Ocean Energy. An arbitrator awarded $1.5 million to these excluded employees, prompting Seagull Energy to seek vacation of the award. The court found that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by applying an incorrect standard of review to the compensation committee's decision, misinterpreting the plan's text regarding amendments and fiduciary duties. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitral award and remanded the claims for a new arbitration.

Severance PlanArbitral AwardPlan AmendmentFiduciary DutyERISAScope of Arbitrator's PowerAbuse of DiscretionCompensation CommitteeCorporate MergerEmployer-Employee Benefits
References
10
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Massena Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order that vacated an arbitration award concerning a custodian, Eric Fetterly. Fetterly, an employee of the petitioner and a member of the respondent union, filed three grievances after an on-the-job injury, disputing his vacation credits, sick leave, and a disciplinary letter. The arbitrator found in Fetterly's favor on all three issues. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing its decision to vacate the arbitrator's determinations on grievances two and three, while affirming the vacatur of the first grievance.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceVacation CreditsSick LeaveDisciplinary ActionArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeavePublic Policy
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,919 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