WHITE PLAINS: 914-468-6096 GOSHEN: 845-294-7620

Frumkin & Hunter Law PC
199 Main Street, Suite 800
White Plains, NY 10601

Phone: 914-468-6096
Fax: 914-468-6099
Map & Directions

Goshen office:
140 Main Street
Goshen, NY 10924

Phone: 845-294-7620
Fax: 845-294-3075
Map & Directions

Published Decisions

Reyes v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund, 281 F. Supp. 3d 833 (N.D. Cal. 2017)(order granting final approval of ERISA class action settlement, and granting in part and denying in part motion for attorneys’ fees).

Kuhbier v. McCartney, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33231, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017)(holding that the plan is governed by ERISA; granting in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying Defendants’ motion) and Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan, 95 F. Supp. 3d 402, 419 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015)(denying defendants’ motion to dismiss because there were issues of fact regarding whether the plan was covered by ERISA).

Marin v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 460, 462 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016) (denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss and holding that Plaintiff’s complaint states a plausible and legally sufficient claim under ERISA section 510 for relief, including Plaintiff’s claim for lost wages and salary incidental to the reinstatement of benefits)

Alcantara v. Bakery & Confectionary Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan, 751 F.3d 71, 74 (2d Cir. May 1, 2014)(affirming district court holding that the anti-cutback rule in ERISA § 204(g) precludes plan amendments that reduce retirement-type subsidies for Plaintiffs-Appellees who ceased employment without satisfying the preamendment conditions for the subsidy, but who could later satisfy the conditions without returning to work), affirming Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund (In re Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan), 865 F. Supp. 2d 469, 470 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012)

Cherniak v. Solow Realty & Dev. Co., LLC, No. 12-CIV-5564 (HB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99937 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2013)(The court denied the Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of) plaintiff’s state law claims on the ground of ERISA preemption.)

Crabtree v. Cent. Fla. Inv, Inc., No. 6;12-cv-656-ORL-31TBS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35289 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2013)(The court denied the Defendant’s motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to assert aclaim for rescission under ERISA.)

Crabtree v. Cent. Fla. Invs, Inc., NO. 6;12-CV-656-Orl-36TBS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177357 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2012) (The court granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment and rescission.)

Donnelly v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 691 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2012) (The court held that standard governing review of allegedly unlawful university tenure denials was inapplicable to such denials in public high schools, plaintiff presented a triable issue of fact as to whether he worked enough hours to be eligible for FMLA leave, and plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence of FMLA retaliation to survive summary judgment.)

Morin v. Tormey, 626 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2010)
(The court held that the judges and other defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on a court employee’s First Amendment claim that she was retaliated against for refusing to engage in partisan political activities).

Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund (In re Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan), 11 CV 1471 (VB),11 CV 9203 (VB),12 CV 141 (VB),12 CV 142 (VB),12 CV 913 (VB), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80800 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012)
(The court ruled in favor of plaintiffs on motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) in actions involving challenges to a change made to a pension fund in which all plaintiffs participate by dint of having worked in eligible positions as bakers in various factories for various employers throughout the country)

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assocs., P.C., 274 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 2001)
(The court held that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the employee had not alleged facts sufficient to show her eligibility under the FMLA. The court reasoned that the district court erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the 15 minutes the employee worked each morning prior to the start of her shift could not be included in her hours worked under the FMLA. The court also held that the district court erred in concluding that the employee was collaterally estopped from litigating her FMLA claims in federal court, reasoning that the issue of whether the employee was terminated for legitimate business reasons was not “adequately tested” or “fully aired.”)

Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997)
(The court held that the city violated federal disability law by refusing to assign a paraplegic firefighter to a permanent light duty position in its fire prevention bureau because the injured firefighter would no longer be required to perform actual firefighting duties).

Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2006)
(The appellate court vacated and remanded that part of the judgment that dismissed the employee’s breach of fiduciary duty claim)

Malinowski v. Wall St. Source, Inc., 09 Civ. 9592 (PAE), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11575 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012)
(The court held that a corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO) was held not personally liable to a former executive for his unpaid wages claim asserted under N.Y. Lab. Law § 198 because no substantive right under § 198 was violated by the non payment of his wages and bonuses and the employment agreement was with the corporation, not the CEO)

Krupman v. Iona Preparatory Sch., 08 CIV 7713 (RPP), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40079 (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2011)
(The court held that the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case of age discrimination, and raised genuine issues of material fact such that a reasonable jury could conclude that Iona’s purported reasons for his release were pretextual, so Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied.)

Drew v. Plaza Constr. Corp., 688 F. Supp. 2d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(The court held that the employee had sufficiently stated plausible claims under the FMLA, Title VII and state and city law for retaliation and discrimination because the employee alleged that he was terminated on the same day that he asked for FMLA leave for “insubordination,” and further alleged claims of a hostile work environment and wrongful termination.)

Moscarello v. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 7:06 cv 5250 (WWE), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109002 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2008)
(The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s FMLA claim)

Fehn v. Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of JP Morgan Chase Bank, 07 Civ. 8321 (WCC), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50060 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2008), reconsideration denied by Fehn v. Group Long Term Disability Plan, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58329 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2008)
(A counterclaim brought by the disability plan benefits administrator seeking reimbursement for excess benefits failed to state an equitable claim under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(3)(B) and was dismissed).

Esser v. Rainbow Adver. Sales Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 574 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
(The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to the plaintiff’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim.)

Blair v. Otto Brehm, Inc., 54 A.D.3d 702 (2nd Dept. 2008)
(Because the issue of mitigation of damages was material, an employer was entitled to discovery on the issue under CPLR 3124; therefore, pursuant to CPLR 3101(a), the trial court erred in granting the employees’ cross motion for a protective order preventing the employer from obtaining discovery on the issue.)

Westchester Disabled on the Move v. Vill. of Larchmont, 7:96 Civ. 8230 (BSJ), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22074 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2000)
(In a case regarding accessibility of voting locations to persons with disabilities, attorneys’ fees for post judgment monitoring were granted pursuant to the consent judgment where inspections performed by the attorneys were appropriate and necessary functions, particularly on behalf of a non profit organization.)