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

BCRE 230 Riverside v. Fuchs

This case concerns an appeal of two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order that allowed the defendant to amend counterclaims and subsequently dismissed those counterclaims. The second order denied the defendant's motion to renew the first order concerning a defamation counterclaim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both lower court orders, finding the defendant's proposed counterclaims for defamation, injurious falsehood, and malicious prosecution to be palpably insufficient as a matter of law due to failures in meeting pleading requirements for particularity, malice, and special damages. The court also rejected the defendant's argument for discovery and found the facts presented for renewal were not new or would not alter the prior determination.

DefamationInjurious FalsehoodMalicious ProsecutionCounterclaimsMotion to VacateMotion to RenewPleading RequirementsCPLR 3016(a)ParticularitySpecial Damages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Properties v. Pyramid Co. of Utica

The court granted a motion to vacate the March 18, 1984 Addendum to an earlier opinion, acknowledging it was based on a mistake of fact. The defendants, Pyramid Company of Utica and associated individuals, had filed counterclaims alleging Sherman Act violations by Interstate. Pyramid contended that Interstate made fraudulent misrepresentations to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1977 to prevent Pyramid from building a shopping mall and maintain Interstate's monopoly. Pyramid further alleged that Interstate later reversed its stance by joining a Joint Venture to successfully seek permission for a similar mall on wetlands. The court ultimately dismissed all counterclaims, finding Pyramid's antitrust allegations legally deficient as they did not satisfy the 'sham exception' to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The opinion clarified that mere misrepresentation of intent was not enough; proof of bribery, fraud, or subversion of the NYSDEC process was required, which Pyramid failed to provide.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington doctrineSham ExceptionCounterclaimsMotion to VacateFraudulent MisrepresentationEnvironmental ConservationShopping Mall DevelopmentWetlands
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1985

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. M. Mathews & Sons Co.

The State Insurance Fund (appellants) initiated an action under the Workers' Compensation Law to recover unpaid premiums. The defendant-respondent responded with a counterclaim seeking damages for the alleged wrongful cancellation of an insurance policy. Appellants moved to dismiss this counterclaim, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that as a State agency, the State Insurance Fund is immune from suit in forums other than the Court of Claims. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, citing a prior decision as the law of the case and *Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Low*. However, the Appellate Court reversed, clarifying that despite some independent functions, the State Insurance Fund maintains sovereign immunity, compelling claims against it to be heard exclusively in the Court of Claims, thereby granting the appellant's motion and dismissing the counterclaim.

Workers' Compensation LawSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionCounterclaimState Insurance FundCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewJurisdictional ChallengeInsurance PolicyPremium Recovery
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. BANKNORTH, NA

This case involves several motions before the District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt. The plaintiff, Burton Tucker, initiated a diversity action against Banknorth, N.A. and others for fraud and related claims. Banknorth counterclaimed for breach of an Equipment Financing Agreement. The Court previously dismissed some defendants and allowed amendments to the complaint, which the plaintiff failed to pursue. Presently, the Court denied Banknorth's motion for reconsideration of an earlier order, denied Tucker's motion to file a sur-reply, and denied Tucker's cross-motion to dismiss Banknorth's counterclaim. Crucially, the Court granted Banknorth's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim, finding Tucker liable for $174,798 plus attorneys' fees and costs, based on the express terms of the Lease Agreement and waiver clauses.

Summary judgmentBreach of contractLease agreementCounterclaimReconsideration motionPro se litigantFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureWaiver doctrineLaw of the caseAttorney's error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poly-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Collegiate Stores Corp.

Poly-Pak Industries and Collegiate Stores Corporation had a written agreement that included a broad arbitration clause. After the agreement expired, a dispute arose when Poly-Pak refused to return printing plates unless Collegiate paid outstanding invoices, some of which were not yet due. Poly-Pak initiated arbitration for damages, and Collegiate asserted counterclaims. Poly-Pak then filed a petition to stay arbitration of Collegiate's counterclaims, arguing the dispute arose after the contract's expiration. The Supreme Court granted the stay. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that a broad arbitration clause survives the termination of an agreement for disputes arising out of that agreement, and the present dispute concerning 'wind-up work' and materials was reasonably related to the original contract and therefore arbitrable. The petition to stay arbitration was dismissed.

ArbitrationContract DisputeArbitration ClauseContract ExpirationCounterclaimsStay ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCommercial Arbitration RulesScope of ArbitrationSurviving Arbitration Clause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vail-Ballou Press, Inc. v. Tomasky

Plaintiff discharged defendant for using abusive language, assaulting a co-worker, and insubordination. Following his discharge, defendant picketed, sent electronic mail to plaintiff's contacts, and created an internet website, detailing his version of events and accusing plaintiff of illegal conduct. Plaintiff secured an order of protection and commenced an action seeking a permanent injunction based on defamation, malicious injury, and wrongful interference. Defendant counterclaimed for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge under Labor Law § 740, and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed only the wrongful termination claim, leading to plaintiff's appeal, which resulted in the dismissal of all defendant's counterclaims.

Retaliatory DischargeMalicious ProsecutionDefamationInsubordinationTrespassingSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewPublic Health and SafetyWrongful Termination
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1990

L.K. Comstock & Co. v. New York Convention Center Development Corp.

Plaintiff, a joint venture of L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc. and Luis Electric Corp., sued the New York Convention Center Development Corporation (NYCCDC) for breach of contract and delay damages on three electrical contracting agreements. NYCCDC counterclaimed, asserting that plaintiff failed to meet Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) participation goals and sought liquidated damages. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing the MBE program was unconstitutional, imposed a penalty, and exceeded NYCCDC's legislative authority. The motion court denied the dismissal, citing triable issues of fact and concluding that plaintiff had waived its right to challenge the MBE program after years of participation. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that plaintiff's constitutional challenge was precluded by waiver and estoppel principles given its financial benefit from the program.

Contract LawBreach of ContractMinority Business Enterprise ProgramConstitutional LawEqual Protection Clause14th AmendmentWaiverEstoppelSummary JudgmentLiquidated Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.

The plaintiff, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, moved to strike several affirmative defenses and dismiss corresponding counterclaims brought by the defendant, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. The core dispute involves a patent license agreement and an alleged unlicensed sublicense by Neurocrine to AbbVie. The court granted Mt. Sinai's motion, striking Neurocrine's affirmative defenses for patent invalidity, non-infringement, and patent misuse. The decision emphasized that Neurocrine was estopped from challenging patent validity due to prior benefits from the license and clarified that Mt. Sinai's damages claim was for breach of contract, not future royalties. Consequently, Neurocrine's related declaratory judgment counterclaims were also dismissed.

Patent invalidityNon-infringementPatent misuseBreach of contractLicense agreementSublicenseDeclaratory judgmentMotion to strikeAffirmative defensesEstoppel
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1997

Pryer v. Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp.

Timothy Pryer, a corrections officer, sustained personal injuries after slipping on sand at the Nassau County Corrections Facility, allegedly due to ongoing construction. He filed a lawsuit against the main contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., and a subcontractor, S&L Concrete Construction Corp., under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted summary judgment motions by the defendants, dismissing Pryer's Labor Law causes of action and the third-party defendant's counterclaims. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Pryer was not engaged in activities enumerated in Labor Law §§ 240 or 241(6) and was not injured in a construction area, thus precluding his claims and the related counterclaims.

Personal injurySlip and fallConstruction accidentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewLabor LawSubcontractor liabilityCorrections officerThird-party claimDuty of care
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 542 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