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

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. 13 Civ. 2284
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2014

Seed Holdings, Inc. v. Jiffy International AS

This case involves a dispute over a purchase price adjustment in an asset purchase agreement between Sellers (Jiffy International AS et al.) and Buyers (Seed Holdings, Inc. et al.). An arbitration award of $4,240,059 was issued by independent accountants in favor of the Buyers. The Buyers (Seed Holdings, Inc.) sought to confirm this award in the Southern District of New York, while the Sellers sought to vacate it. The court denied the Sellers' motion to vacate and granted Seed's motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding the Sellers' objections regarding jurisdiction, timeliness of claims, accounting methodology (GAAP), and evidence consideration to be without merit.

Arbitration AwardPurchase Price AdjustmentAsset Purchase AgreementGAAP Accounting StandardsFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Subject Matter JurisdictionMotion to VacateMotion to ConfirmContract InterpretationBinding Determination
References
64
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1977

Claim of Panzica v. Oaks

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on August 12, 1977, which disallowed a claim for compensation. The claimant's deceased husband, a buyer-expediter, died in an automobile accident while returning home from company-sponsored social events held on the employer's property. The central issue was whether his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Board, reversing a referee’s determination, found the decedent to be an 'inside worker' whose risks of travel were not incidental to employment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing with the Board's finding.

Automobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentEmployer Sponsored EventInside WorkerTravel RiskAppellate DecisionDeath ClaimDisallowed ClaimOff-premises Injury
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03883 [218 AD3d 24]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

Matter of Ellenberg

Robert L. Ellenberg, an attorney, was charged with professional misconduct by the Attorney Grievance Committee, including improper notarization, unauthorized signing and submission of settlement documents, neglect, and failure to communicate with a client. The parties reached a joint agreement for a two-month suspension, which the Appellate Division, First Department, granted. The court considered Ellenberg's conditional admissions, prior admonition, and substantial experience as aggravating factors, balanced by mitigating factors such as cooperation, remorse, absence of selfish motive, and his long, generally unblemished career, concluding that a two-month suspension was appropriate for his two acts of deception.

Attorney Disciplinary ActionProfessional MisconductNotarization IrregularitiesUnauthorized Document SubmissionClient Communication FailureNeglect of Legal MatterForged SignaturesTwo-Month SuspensionAppellate Division DecisionMitigation Factors
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03449
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Alpert

Sara Alpert, an attorney, was disciplined for intentionally dishonest conduct related to her failure to file H-1B visa applications. She made false representations to her law firm, fabricated documents, and backdated filings to conceal her inaction. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department and Alpert jointly moved for discipline by consent, requesting a six-month suspension. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion, suspending Alpert for six months, citing her lack of diligence, deception, and mitigating factors such as her youth, inexperience, remorse, and a serious medical condition that led to fear of losing health insurance.

attorney disciplineprofessional misconductH-1B visaimmigration lawfrauddeceitmisrepresentationlack of diligenceattorney suspensionethical violations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2003

In re Vasquez

Respondent Mario A. Vasquez, an attorney practicing in the First Judicial Department, was charged by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee with forging a memorandum to authorize a salary increase for himself and misrepresenting a call from a Deputy Mayor. He was subsequently charged with forgery, attempted grand larceny, official misconduct, and tampering with public records, eventually pleading guilty to official misconduct. Despite substantial mitigating factors, including cooperation with authorities, an otherwise clean record, and genuine remorse, the court confirmed the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, agreeing with the Hearing Panel's minority recommendation.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductForgeryOfficial MisconductSuspension from PracticeMitigating FactorsDepartmental Disciplinary CommitteeNew York BarCode of Professional ResponsibilityPenal Law Violations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Felix

The defendant, Felix, was convicted of intentional manslaughter after fatally stabbing Melvin Martinez due to long-standing animosity. The trial court imposed a maximum 25-year sentence. Justice Tom, J.E., dissents from a decision that reduced Felix's sentence, arguing that there are no mitigating circumstances justifying the leniency. The dissent emphasizes the unprovoked and deliberate nature of the killing, Felix's unconvincing claims of self-defense, and his perceived lack of remorse, advocating for the affirmation of the original 25-year judgment. The document details the events leading to the stabbing, witness testimonies, and the medical examiner's findings, underscoring the severity of the crime.

Criminal LawManslaughterSentencingDissenting OpinionAggravated AssaultLack of RemorseSelf-Defense ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIntentional Killing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.R. Elkins, Inc.

The motion by the debtor, J.R. Elkins, Inc., to reject a collective bargaining agreement with the United Steel Workers of America — AFL/CIO, Local 6752 was granted. The decision applied the 'balancing of equities' test, which weighs competing private and public interests. The court found that J.R. Elkins, Inc. was facing imminent financial collapse, and a prospective buyer's offer was contingent on the rejection of the current collective bargaining agreement. Without this rejection, the offer would be withdrawn, leading to the debtor's liquidation and the loss of eleven employees' jobs. The court concluded that rejecting the agreement was essential for the debtor's survival and the preservation of employment.

Bankruptcy CodeCollective Bargaining AgreementDebtor ReorganizationFinancial CollapseLabor LawBalancing of Equities TestExecutory ContractsUnion RightsJob PreservationChapter 11
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01095 [180 AD3d 818]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

People v. Medina

Eduardo Medina appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, designating him a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and denying his request for a downward departure. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the appeal. Although the Supreme Court failed to provide specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Appellate Division deemed the record sufficient for its own determination. The defendant's arguments regarding remorse and family/social worker support were found to be insufficient to warrant a downward departure. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to designate Medina as a level three sex offender.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORADownward DepartureRisk Level AssessmentAppellate ReviewCriminal LawSentencingRecidivismMitigating FactorsNew York State Courts
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 31 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