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

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

Hoerger v. Board of Education

This case concerns an appeal regarding the applicable Statute of Limitations for a breach of fair representation claim brought by former public school employees (Hoerger and Hyman) against their union and the Board of Education. The employees retired under an incentive plan but later discovered other employees received higher incentives through separate, privately negotiated agreements, facilitated by the union. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair representation, along with fraud. The union sought dismissal based on a shorter Statute of Limitations, citing federal labor law. However, the court ruled that federal precedents like DelCostello v Teamsters are inapplicable to public sector employment. Instead, the court applied New York State's six-year Statute of Limitations for contract actions (CPLR 213 [2]), analogizing the claim to legal malpractice for pecuniary damages. Consequently, the plaintiffs' action was deemed timely, and the Special Term's denial of the union's motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationPublic Sector EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement Incentive PlanLegal Malpractice AnalogyFederal Labor Law DistinctionNew York State LawClass ActionFraudulent Inducement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University in the City of New York

George D. Walker, a former security guard at Columbia University, sued his employer and labor union for various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful discharge, age discrimination under New York Human Rights Law, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Walker was mandatorily retired in December 1978 at age 65, under the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement, signed in July 1979, retroactively extended the mandatory retirement age to 70 as of January 1, 1979. Walker claimed he was unaware of this change until late 1987 or early 1988. The defendants, Columbia University and the Union, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Walker's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court found that a six-month statute of limitations applied to the hybrid § 301/fair representation claim and that Walker should have reasonably known about the alleged breach in 1978 or 1979, given the union's publicized meetings regarding contract negotiations. The court also denied any basis for tolling the statute of limitations, as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment and plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint, ruling that all of plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Age DiscriminationWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationFederal Labor LawHybrid § 301 Claim
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02252 [195 AD3d 40]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2021

Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put - Back Litig.

This case addresses contractual disputes arising from the pooling and securitization of residential mortgages (RMBS). Computershare Trust Company, National Association, acting as a Separate Securities Administrator, sued Natixis Real Estate Holdings LLC (and its predecessor) for breaching a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) by failing to identify and repurchase nonconforming mortgages. Natixis, in turn, filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Securities Administrator and Master Servicer), alleging Wells Fargo breached its PSA duties to notify of breaches and supervise the Servicer. The Appellate Division ruled that Natixis's statute of limitations defense, based on the borrowing statute (CPLR 202), was not waived, overturning the lower court's decision on this point. It affirmed the dismissal of Natixis's contractual indemnification claim against Wells Fargo but allowed Natixis's independent breach of contract claims (failure to notify and failure to supervise) against Wells Fargo to proceed.

RMBSPut-Back LitigationContractual ObligationsStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteLaw of the CaseWaiverIndemnificationBreach of ContractSecurities Administrator
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kryder v. Estate

Patricia Porter Kryder filed a declaratory judgment action against James Kemmler Rogers, later substituted by his estate administrator, Jennifer Rogers-Etcheverry, concerning the enforceability of a Promissory Note. Kryder asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, accounting, and declaratory judgment. Etcheverry counterclaimed for breach of contract based on the Promissory Note, unjust enrichment, and sought an equitable lien. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Etcheverry on all of Kryder's claims, citing Kryder's failure to properly substitute Etcheverry as a defendant, the applicability of Tennessee's Dead Man's Statute, and the statute of limitations for certain claims. Additionally, the court granted Etcheverry's motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim for breach of contract due to Kryder's failure to make interest payments and to secure the note with a Deed of Trust, and also granted the request for an equitable lien on Kryder's property. However, Etcheverry's counterclaim for unjust enrichment was denied due to factual disputes regarding additional funds advanced.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentDead Man's StatuteStatute of LimitationsEquitable LienUnjust EnrichmentDiversity JurisdictionEstate Law
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saucedo v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.

Jose Saucedo appealed a summary judgment ruling against him in his claims against Rheem Manufacturing Company and Jaime Loera, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on all claims except for Saucedo's breach of contract claim against Rheem. The court found that Saucedo's employment for an annual salary exempted his contract from the Statute of Frauds, allowing his breach of contract claim to proceed for damages incurred until July 14, 1995. However, the court upheld the summary judgment on defamation due to invited publication and lack of outrageous conduct for emotional distress, and on promissory estoppel and fraud due to the Statute of Frauds.

breach of contractpromissory estoppelfrauddefamationintentional infliction of emotional distresssummary judgment appealemployment at willStatute of Fraudsresume fraudappellate court
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc.

This case involves employees of Malabar Palace restaurant suing Royal Arcadia Palace and its owners for various labor law violations, fraud, and breach of contract after Malabar closed and Royal Arcadia opened in the same location. Plaintiffs allege Royal Arcadia is a successor entity created to avoid Malabar's debts, and that defendants were partners in Malabar and responsible for unpaid wages, overtime, and loans. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of FLSA coverage, employer status, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, and agency. The court denied summary judgment for most claims and most plaintiffs, except for dismissing Plaintiff Vimla, dismissing breach of contract for back-wages, and granting breach of contract for loans for all plaintiffs except Manjit.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertime PayMinimum WageSuccessor LiabilityFraudBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPartnership Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. American Zurich Insurance

This dissenting opinion addresses a dispute over breach of contract counterclaims concerning insurance policies, specifically regarding the application of the statute of limitations. The majority affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that certain counterclaims for debt, arising more than six years prior to the action's commencement, were time-barred. The dissent argues that the cause of action for breach of contract in retrospective premium, adjustable deductible, and claim services policies does not accrue until the insurer demands payment and the insured subsequently refuses. It contends that the contractual obligation to pay is contingent upon a demand, thus starting the statute of limitations period from the refusal date, not merely when the right to demand payment first arises. The dissent would have found that none of the defendants' counterclaims were barred by the statute of limitations.

statute of limitationsbreach of contractinsurance lawcontract interpretationretrospective premiumsadjustable deductiblesaccrual of cause of actiondemand for paymentdissenting opinionappellate review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Teamsters Local Union 553

Plaintiff Delroy Boyd brought a lawsuit on February 1, 1984, against his employer Harsa Trucking Corporation and Teamsters Local Union 553. He claimed breach of the collective bargaining agreement and age discrimination against Harsa, and breach of the duty of fair representation against the Union. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations established in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The court granted both motions, concluding that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued on April 14, 1983, and that filing charges with the NLRB did not toll the statute of limitations. The decision held that the six-month statute applies both retroactively and prospectively to such "hybrid" claims, leaving only the age discrimination claim against Harsa.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentHybrid ClaimNational Labor Relations ActEquitable TollingFederal Civil ProcedureLabor Law
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 5,615 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