Bakerman, Inc. v. Roberts, 98 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). · Go Syfert
Bakerman, Inc. v. Roberts, 98 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Morales v. Arrowood Indem. Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Co. , 90 AD3d 725, 726 [2d Dept 2011]; Freyne v Xerox Corp. , 98 AD2d 965, 965 [4th Dept 1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maki v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Dealing first with the claims against the individual defendants, “[a] review of the record fails to reveal any factual allegations that [they] acted either outside the scope of their employment or for personal profit” in a manner that would open them to personal liability (Freyne v Xerox Corp., 98 AD2d 965, 965 [1983]; see American-European Art Assoc. v Trend Galleries, 227 AD2d 170, 171-172 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bakerman, Inc., Doing Business as Mister Donut
v.
Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 16, 1983.
98 A.D.2d 965
Published

— Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We[*966] find substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner established a policy of “requesting or directing” its counter employees to wear waitress-style uniforms which are not suitable for use outside of employment (12 NYCRR 137-3.12). Petitioner’s testimony that there was no such policy conflicted with testimony from the department’s witnesses who testified that they were instructed to request all employees to wear uniforms and that a vast majority of employees did wear uniforms during the period in question. This factual dispute was for the board to resolve, and the courts may not reevaluate the weight accorded the evidence (Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222, 230). Nor do we find any error with respect to the 5% pay differential. Tips may be used as an offset only if they average 60 cents per hour (12 NYCRR 137-1.5 [a] [2]). There was literally no proof in the record as to the amount of the tips; therefore, respondent properly denied a tip offset. With respect to an offset for breaks and snacks, petitioner has not challenged the reasoning relied on by respondent, to wit, that an offset is allowed only when it is part of a wage order. Accordingly, we have no occasion to disturb the determination. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Johnson, J.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.