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. No. Civ. 8405(CM)(JCF)
Regular Panel Decision

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance

Plaintiffs Jonathan Berck and Martin Fleisher sued Phoenix Life Insurance Company for breach of contract regarding "premium-adjustable, universal life" (PAUL) insurance policies. Berck, a trustee, alleged two breaches by Phoenix: an improper 2010 cost of insurance (COI) rate increase and a concurrent interest rate decrease. Berck claimed the COI increase, based on impermissible factors and non-uniform application, forced him to invest an additional $700,000 to avoid higher charges, incurring a $35,000 sales fee. Phoenix moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Berck lacked standing and that Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction was lost post-class decertification, and for partial summary judgment on anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest. The court denied both motions, affirming Berck's standing due to economic harm and maintaining CAFA jurisdiction based on initial class allegations. The court also denied summary judgment regarding anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest as premature, allowing the case to proceed.

Breach of contractInsurance policiesUniversal life insuranceCost of insurance ratesInterest rate decreaseSubject matter jurisdictionStandingClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Motion to dismissMotion for partial summary judgment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2001

Vitale v. Buttafuoco & Associates

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff had established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court agreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant, who had represented the plaintiff in a prior negligence lawsuit, improperly included a portion of a waived workers' compensation lien as part of its contingency fee. This action was deemed a breach of the retainer agreement and a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 24. The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was also properly denied.

Breach of contractContingency feeWorkers' Compensation lienSummary judgmentRetainer agreementAppellate reviewLegal feesAttorney misconductWaiver of lienNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anjay Corp. v. Those Certain Underwriters

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance claim denied by defendant insurers to plaintiff jewelry manufacturers. The plaintiffs experienced a significant loss due to an explosion and fire at their facility in Mexico. The defendants denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiffs had breached a "Video Tape Warranty" in their jewelers’ block insurance policy by failing to preserve relevant videotapes. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that a breach of warranty does not negate recovery under an insurance contract unless it materially increases the risk of loss, which is typically a factual question for a jury. The court found the defendants' arguments regarding the materiality of the breach unconvincing and subsequently reinstated the plaintiffs' complaint.

Insurance LawBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentVideo Tape WarrantyMateriality of BreachRisk of LossJewelers' Block PolicyAppellate ReviewReversalComplaint Reinstatement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apex Industrial Construction Corp. v. Village of Lake George

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract and awarding damages to the defendant village on its counterclaim. The plaintiff claimed the village breached the contract by failing to provide a clear construction site, due to a plumbers' union picket line protesting the village's award of plumbing work to a nonunion employer. The court found that the picketing was an act of a third party, not attributable to the village, and that the village lawfully awarded contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, even if nonunion. Therefore, the plaintiff's abandonment of the job constituted a breach of contract, justifying the damages awarded to the village. The judgment was affirmed.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawLabor DisputePicket LineNonunion EmployerMunicipal ContractsLowest Responsible BidderContract AbandonmentDamages AwardedThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Perna

Claimant Marino sued defendant Perna for breach of warranty of title after purchasing a stolen automobile, which led to his son's arrest and the car's seizure. Perna had bought the car from third-party defendant Marshal Locascio at a traffic auction. The court found that Locascio, as a Marshal, was exempt from implied warranty of title under UCC 2-312, and the action against him was also barred by a one-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court ruled in favor of Marino against Perna for breach of warranty of title, awarding $1,200 for the car's value, but denying consequential damages for legal fees due to lack of foreseeability on Perna's part.

breach of warrantywarranty of titlestolen vehicleUniform Commercial CodeStatute of LimitationsMarshal salepublic auctionconsequential damagesautomobile saleimplied warranty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reda v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiffs, former managers of Videk, sued Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) and Eastman Technology, Inc. (ETI) for alleged breach of a "Long Term Incentive Plan" (LTIP). They sought payment under a merger clause, contending a payout was triggered when Videk was removed from ETI and merged into Kodak. Defendants argued that no merger occurred and that Videk was not financially successful, a prerequisite for any payout under the LTIP. The court concluded that the LTIP indeed required financial success for a payout and found that Videk was not financially successful, having sustained significant cumulative losses. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to establish that Videk was merged into Kodak, as it maintained its separate identity as a division of ETI. The court also determined that defendants did not breach their implied contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing, as they acted within their contractual discretion. Consequently, the amended judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Contract disputeMerger clauseFinancial success conditionBreach of contractGood faith and fair dealingImplied obligationVenture managementLong Term Incentive PlanCorporate structureEmployee compensation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America v. Lee National Corp.

This suit was brought by an international union against an employer for alleged breaches of collective bargaining contracts concerning employees at the Company’s former Conshohocken and Youngstown plants. The Union's second claim sought arbitration or $2 million for a special distribution upon discontinuance of operations. The third claim sought $2 million for alleged breach of contract due to the discontinuance of a life insurance plan for retired employees or arbitration. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the arbitration claim within the second cause of action but denied the motion regarding the merits of that claim. The court entirely granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action concerning the life insurance plan for retired employees.

Collective Bargaining AgreementContract BreachSummary Judgment MotionArbitration RightsSeverance PayLife Insurance BenefitsRetired EmployeesPlant ClosureLabor LawUnion Dispute
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,622 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