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
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levitt v. Board of Collective Bargaining

The City of New York promulgated Personnel Policy and Procedure Bulletin number 401-86, requiring city employees to disclose and repay debts as a condition for appointment or promotion. Three unions challenged this policy before the Board of Collective Bargaining, asserting it constituted an improper labor practice as it unilaterally changed terms of employment without collective bargaining. The Board sided with the unions, ruling the city had acted improperly. The City then petitioned the court to set aside the Board's determination. The court granted the City's petition, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and arbitrary, concluding that the policy concerned management's fundamental right to set employee qualifications and maintain integrity, and was therefore exempt from mandatory collective bargaining. The court also critiqued the Board's balancing test regarding employee privacy rights.

Improper Labor PracticeCollective BargainingManagerial PrerogativeDebt CollectionEmployee QualificationsPublic EmployeesPrivacy RightsAdministrative CodeJudicial ReviewPERB
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC

Plaintiff Johnson Poku Okyere brought claims against Todd Houslanger, Houslanger and Associates, PLLC (Houslanger Defendants), Palisades Collection, LLC, and Ronald Moses (a New York City Marshal) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and conversion. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims. The court found that Okyere's allegations regarding the failure to file a notice of substitution of attorneys and the retention of funds did not constitute FDCPA violations, as the statute's relevant section prohibits threats of illegal action, not the action itself, and misrepresentations must be made to the debtor directly. Consequently, the FDCPA claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law conversion claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

FDCPAFair Debt Collection Practices ActDebt CollectionConversionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(c)Vicarious LiabilityAttorney-Client RelationshipState Law Claims
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co.

The State Insurance Fund (SIF) sued Pet Lift Ltd. and Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co., Inc. to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums and associated collection costs. Defendant Pet Lift Ltd. sought summary judgment, arguing SIF failed to comply with State Finance Law § 18 (10) by not determining if immediate debt collection would jeopardize the debtor's fiscal viability and cause public hardship. The court clarified that SIF has a mandatory duty to evaluate all debt collection cases for potential public hardship, regardless of a specific debtor request. Additionally, the court discussed the prerequisites for SIF to recover collection costs under State Finance Law § 18 (5), requiring proof of estimated costs, bill transmission, and a liquidated debt. Ultimately, the court denied Pet Lift's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding SIF's adherence to the statutory requirements.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsDebt Collection PracticesSummary Judgment MotionState Finance Law § 18Statutory InterpretationPublic Hardship DeterminationFiscal ViabilityCondition PrecedentAdministrative Guidelines
References
55
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02405
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Joseph Chen, Inc. v. Romona Keveza Collection LLC

This case, Joseph Chen, Inc. v Romona Keveza Collection LLC, addresses the application of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA) in New York. Plaintiffs Joseph Chen Inc., a photographer's company, and Dina Kozlovska, a fashion model, sought compensation from Romona Keveza Collection LLC (RKC) for unpaid services. The initial Supreme Court order, which denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, was appealed. The Appellate Division clarified that Chen Inc. qualified as a freelance worker under FIFA, even when utilizing assistants, and Kozlovska's prior agency involvement did not negate her freelance status. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability against RKC, thereby affirming their rights under the Freelance Isn't Free Act.

Freelance Isn't Free ActIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeUnpaid ServicesSingle-Person OrganizationAppellate DivisionLiabilityStatutory InterpretationFashion Industry
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McFarland v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.

Alvin S. McFarland appealed the trial court's decision to grant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.'s motion for summary judgment in a credit card debt collection suit and deny McFarland's cross-motion. Citibank sued McFarland for unpaid credit card debt based on an "account stated" cause of action, among other claims. McFarland challenged the competency of Citibank's affidavit evidence and argued that "account stated" was not applicable to credit card collections. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the affidavit competent and confirming that an "account stated" cause of action is appropriate for credit card debt collection in Texas.

Credit card debtSummary judgmentAccount statedAppellate reviewAffidavit competencyBusiness records exceptionPersonal knowledgeImplied contractTexas civil procedureDebt collection law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Citibank, N.A.

James Williams, a pro se plaintiff, filed claims against Citibank N.A. and Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., alleging unlawful debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), breach of contract, and fraud. The claims stemmed from actions related to two credit card accounts, where Plaintiff contended an inadvertent 50-cent underpayment led to a significant APR increase and aggressive collection efforts. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except for breach of contract. The Court dismissed the federal FDCPA claim, ruling that the Citibank entities were creditors and not 'debt collectors' as defined by the FDCPA. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to attempt to establish the applicability of the FDCPA’s 'false name exception'. The remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, with potential reconsideration if a viable FDCPA claim is presented.

FDCPADebt CollectionCreditorMotion to DismissPro Se PlaintiffBreach of ContractFraudFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsAmended Complaint
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Bedi

The U.S. Government filed a civil action against Datalink Computer Products, Inc. and its President, Vickram Bedi, to collect back pay awarded by the Department of Labor to former employee Helga Ingvarsdottir. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the collection was premature as the period for judicial review of the DOL's award had not expired, and that the Government was not the proper party to collect the debt. The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding the ARB's decision a 'final agency action' and determining that the Government's complaint sufficiently stated a plausible claim for relief under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.

Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA)Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissBack Pay CollectionH-1B Visa ProgramDepartment of Labor (DOL)Administrative Review Board (ARB)Wage and Hour DivisionFinal Agency ActionCollateral EstoppelJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Gorden v. Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Yvette Van Gorden against Defendant Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant's debt collection letter for a Walmart credit card debt was unclear regarding the distinction between requests for debt verification and the original creditor's name and address. Initially, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to the Defendant's failure to oppose, finding an FDCPA violation. However, the Plaintiff's counsel failed to submit proposed damages, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiff subsequently moved for relief from this dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) due to a clerical error by counsel. The Court denied this motion, asserting that an attorney's mistake is not a valid ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), although the plaintiff is not precluded from re-filing the action.

FDCPADebt CollectionSummary JudgmentRule 60(b)(1)Attorney MistakeClerical ErrorDismissal Without PrejudiceFederal ProcedureConsumer LawStatutory Damages
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,696 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