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

Moll v. US Life Title Insurance Co. of New York

The case involves plaintiffs Moll, Elser, McGuire, and Harlow suing US Life Title Insurance Company of New York, asserting claims under RESPA, RICO, and state laws. Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation, failure to disclose kickbacks to attorneys, and aiding and abetting fraud related to title insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to adequately allege mail fraud or commercial bribery as predicate acts for RICO claims, citing insufficient evidence of misrepresentation, a duty to disclose, substantial assistance in fraud, or economic harm due to non-negotiable premiums. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted, leave to replead was denied, and pendent state law claims were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActRESPA ActMail FraudCommercial BriberyFraud AllegationsMotion to DismissPendent State ClaimsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Title Insurance
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs Cliff and Betsy Lang filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company of New York, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law § 349. The plaintiffs claimed they were overcharged for title insurance during a mortgage refinancing, as they did not receive a discounted rate they believed they were entitled to under state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the RESPA claim, arguing that RESPA § 8(b) does not provide a private right of action for 'overcharges'. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, finding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits fees for unperformed services or splits, not simply excessive charges. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

RESPATitle InsuranceMortgage RefinancingOvercharge ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal CourtState LawSupplemental JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPleading Standards
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02617
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over cash proceeds from the demutualization of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). Petitioner, Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP, purchased the professional liability insurance policy and paid all associated premiums. Respondent, Rachel S. Title, M.D., was the named insured but did not contribute to the policy costs. The Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds, including accrued interest, and directed the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, to enter judgment accordingly. The decision affirmed that awarding the proceeds to the respondent would constitute unjust enrichment, as she did not pay for the policy or bargain for the demutualization benefits.

Demutualization proceedsProfessional liability insuranceUnjust enrichmentInsurance policyPremium paymentsAppellate DivisionCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
2
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
Dec 28, 2017

Gonzalez-Cruz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Rafael Gonzalez-Cruz sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The court vacated the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred at step five of the disability evaluation process. Specifically, the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony regarding available jobs and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles' (DOT) language requirements, given Gonzalez-Cruz's illiteracy and inability to communicate in English. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address this inconsistency, while the court affirmed the ALJ's findings on adaptive functioning and the treating physician rule.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertDictionary of Occupational TitlesIlliteracyLanguage BarrierMental Impairment
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Barnhart

Antonia Sanchez sought review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claims for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The District Court identified two key issues: the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) failure to fully develop the record regarding Sanchez's fibromyalgia diagnosis from the Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD), and errors made by the vocational expert in identifying available employment opportunities due to inconsistencies with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The ALJ had failed to pursue HJD medical records after a subpoena went unanswered, despite Sanchez appearing pro se and with a language barrier, thus violating the heightened duty to develop the record. Additionally, the vocational expert incorrectly categorized certain jobs as light-exertional when the DOT defined them as medium. Consequently, the Court granted Sanchez's motion to remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security BenefitsDisability ClaimsALJ Duty to Develop RecordVocational Expert TestimonyFibromyalgia DiagnosisPro Se ClaimantMedical EvidenceRemand for Further ProceedingsSSI Benefits ReviewDictionary of Occupational Titles
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Fitzgerald sued his employer, Chicago Title Insurance Co., alleging disability discrimination under New York law after he was discharged. Fitzgerald claimed his termination, occurring during a company consolidation and layoffs, was due to the employer learning he was seeing a psychiatrist for depression. Chicago Title moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged disability was not protected and Fitzgerald failed to present evidence of discriminatory animus. The court reviewed Fitzgerald's performance and the communication of his psychiatric care to company personnel, finding no direct link to the termination decision-makers. The court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that Fitzgerald failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding discriminatory motivation under either pretext or mixed-motive analysis.

Disability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawPretext DiscriminationMixed Motive AnalysisMental ImpairmentDepressionEmployer LiabilityEmployment Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brynien v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

This case is an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed petitioner’s applications to review denials of out-of-title work grievances. The petitioner, representing five state employees at the Office of Mental Health (OMH), alleged that employees were improperly assigned duties of a Treatment Team Leader, a higher-grade position, violating their collective bargaining agreement and Civil Service Law § 61 (2). OMH and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) denied the grievances, finding the duties appropriate to the employees' titles. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that GOER's determination was rational. The court found that the assigned duties were a reasonable extension of the employees' in-title duties and that the employees did not meet the minimum requirements for the higher-grade Treatment Team Leader position.

Out-of-title workGrievanceCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee ClassificationJob DutiesSupervisory DutiesRational Basis ReviewAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vazquez v. Orange County Rehabilitation Center

Plaintiff's ward was allegedly sexually assaulted by defendant Lewis while engaged in piecework at a sheltered workshop operated by Occupations. Defendants Occupations and Lewis asserted workers' compensation coverage as affirmative defenses. The court held that claims occurring before July 22, 1989, when Mental Hygiene Law § 33.09 (c) excluded sheltered workshop participants from workers' compensation, are not subject to the defense. For claims after July 22, 1989, when the law was amended to allow coverage if elected, the issue of workers' compensation coverage is referred to the Workers' Compensation Board. Defendant Orange County Department of Mental Health's motion for summary judgment was granted due to lack of evidence linking them to the incident or supervision of Occupations.

sexual assaultsheltered workshopworkers' compensationsummary judgmentaffirmative defensestatutory constructionjurisdictionMental Hygiene Lawamendmentnegligence
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,403 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