Baxter v. T.G. Peppe, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Scriven v. Davis Ulmer Sprinkler Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Claim of Huggins v. Masterclass Masonry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 2, 2009, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accidental injury in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
Claimant, who worked for the employer installing and removing awnings at various commercial locations, fractured his leg after he slipped on a sidewalk when he and his coworker stopped to get something to eat at a bakery while on their way back to the employer’s office at the end of a work day. Claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and, after a hearing, a workers’ compensation law judge determined that the injury was not compensable because it occurred while claimant was on an unpaid lunch break and disallowed the claim. Upon review, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that decision, and claimant now appeals.
We affirm. “Lunchtime injuries are generally deemed to occur outside the scope of employment except under limited circumstances where the employer continues to exercise authority over the employee during the lunch break” (Matter of Smith v City of Rochester, 255 AD2d 863, 863 [1998] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Smith v United States Trucking Corp., 66 AD2d 939 [1978]). Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant and his coworker had discretion regarding the timing and location of their lunchtime break
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
It is notable that the stop at the bakery is repeatedly referred to as a “lunch break” during the hearing and claimant made no objection to such classification.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.