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

Turner v. Turner

After a 30-year marriage, the plaintiff wife initiated a divorce action in August 1991, seeking equitable distribution of marital property. The Supreme Court's initial distribution, which allocated approximately 62% of assets to the defendant and 38% to the plaintiff without explanation, was appealed by the plaintiff for equal division. The appellate court concurred, mandating equal division of net rental income and marital residence proceeds. Furthermore, recognizing the significant disparity in their retirement plans and the plaintiff's limited contribution period, the court ruled she was entitled to an equitable share of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff was also granted reimbursement for a $4,410 Workers' Compensation award confiscated by the defendant without proper offset proof. The judgment was modified and the matter remitted for property redistribution and consideration of counsel fees.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorceWorkers' CompensationPension DivisionRental IncomeSpousal SupportMarital AssetsReimbursementCounsel Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Viviano v. Allard

This case involves a postjudgment application for equitable distribution of a class action settlement by a former wife against her former husband. The parties were divorced in 1984, with all known marital property having been distributed. The husband became a member of a class action lawsuit against Continental Can Company, where his employment was terminated prior to the divorce, leading to a substantial monetary settlement in 1990. The wife, learning of this settlement in 1992, filed for equitable distribution, arguing the proceeds constituted marital property. The Supreme Court ordered a hearing, finding that the settlement proceeds, if known at the time of divorce, would have been considered marital property. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unusual circumstances where an asset was unknown to both parties at the time of the divorce, thereby justifying an opportunity for the wife to litigate the issue. The court held that benefits earned during the marriage, even if realized post-divorce, could be subject to equitable distribution.

Divorce LawEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyClass Action SettlementPostjudgment ReliefRes Judicata ExceptionAppellate ReviewUnforeseen AssetsDeferred CompensationFamily Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1989

Smith v. Smith

In this case, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially granted equitable distribution of State lottery winnings by allocating 85% to the defendant husband and 15% to the plaintiff wife. The parties were married in 1982, and the defendant won $13.5 million in the lottery in 1985 through a pool with co-workers. Although the wife regularly played the lottery, the husband rarely did. The court found the winnings to be marital property but awarded the wife only 15% based on the ticket being acquired solely through the husband's efforts. On appeal, the judgment was unanimously reversed, with the appellate court determining that a more equitable distribution would be an equal division of the lottery winnings, citing the parties' equal contributions to the marriage, their treatment of it as a partnership, and the fact that the winnings were their only significant asset.

Equitable DistributionLottery WinningsMarital PropertySpousal ContributionsDomestic Relations LawProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewMatrimonial AssetsFinancial AssetsDissolution of Marriage
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dash v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US

Kenneth Dash, a black employee, sued Equitable Life Assurance Society and Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp. for racial discrimination in employment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging unfair job evaluations, denied promotion, and retaliatory discharge. Defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The court, applying Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively, dismissed claims of discriminatory job evaluations, discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge under § 1981. However, the court denied the motion for summary judgment regarding the discriminatory denial of promotion claim, finding a question of fact as to whether the promotion to Team Leader constituted an opportunity for a "new and distinct" contractual relationship. The promotion claim will proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Promotion DenialRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionNew and Distinct Relation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goudreau v. Goudreau

This case details an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning the equitable distribution of marital property and the denial of maintenance in a divorce action. The parties, married in 1978, had two children. The plaintiff worked in the defendant's contracting business without pay before developing a work-related partial disability and receiving workers' compensation benefits. The defendant's primary income came from his contracting business, and the couple acquired three parcels of real property during their marriage. The Supreme Court granted a divorce, distributed assets, and denied maintenance to both parties. On appeal, the court affirmed the equitable distribution, deeming it fair. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of maintenance, remitting the case for a new trial on that issue. This reversal was based on the Supreme Court's failure to provide a reasoned analysis for its decision, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b), and concerns regarding the imputation of income to the plaintiff without adequately considering her partial disability or providing a factual basis for the calculation.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceSpousal SupportImputed IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleitz v. Fleitz

This case involves an appeal concerning the equitable distribution of marital property, specifically disability income insurance benefits. The parties married in 1970 and have two children. The defendant, a dentist, became totally disabled in 1982 due to a hunting accident. The Supreme Court initially determined that the defendant's disability benefits constituted marital property and awarded the plaintiff one-half of the monthly payments. The defendant appealed, arguing the benefits were compensation for personal injuries and thus separate property under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (d). The appellate court agreed with the defendant, finding that disability income benefits for personal injury are separate property, even if premiums were paid with marital income. Consequently, the judgment was modified, reversing the child support, maintenance, and equitable distribution paragraphs, converting the disability award to temporary maintenance, and remitting the case to the Supreme Court for further consideration of all financial issues.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDisability BenefitsPersonal InjurySeparate PropertyDomestic Relations LawInsurance LawChild SupportMaintenanceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartog v. Hartog

This equitable distribution case concerns the appeal of a wife from an Appellate Division order modifying a Supreme Court judgment on divorce and property distribution after a 23-year marriage. Key issues include whether the appreciation of the husband's separate property businesses and his bonus constituted marital property, the court's authority to order life insurance or liens for maintenance, and the appropriate duration of maintenance. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Supreme Court's finding that a proportionate share of the businesses' appreciation and the husband's bonus were marital property, criticizing the Appellate Division's 'exacting causation prerequisite.' It also reinstated lifetime maintenance for the wife, emphasizing the mandatory consideration of the predivorce standard of living. However, the Court agreed with the Appellate Division that ordering life insurance or estate liens was inappropriate given the husband's uninsurability and lack of inherent judicial authority for liens, and upheld the consideration of tax consequences in the distributive award. The final decision modifies the Appellate Division's order and, as modified, affirms it.

Equitable distributionMarital propertySeparate property appreciationSpousal maintenanceLifetime maintenanceLife insuranceEstate lienDivorceAppellate reviewActive involvement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheer v. New York State Insurance Fund

The case involves a dispute between injured employee Gary A. Scheer and the New York State Insurance Fund (carrier) regarding the enforcement of a workers' compensation lien against a $600,000 third-party tort settlement. Scheer, injured in 2001 while working for Huntley Power, LLC, sought to reduce the carrier's $193,225.91 lien based on equitable considerations from Medicaid lien jurisprudence (Ahlborn). The carrier, however, argued for applying New York's Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 as interpreted by state precedent (Kelly, Burns). The court, presided by Justice Patrick H. NeMoyer, denied Scheer's petition and granted the carrier's cross-motion, ruling that New York's statutory scheme does not permit equitable reductions of the lien based on the Ahlborn factors or the compromised value of the tort claim. The court determined the net lien to be $151,566.40 and established the carrier's future credit and reduced payment rates based on a 21.56% cost-of-litigation percentage.

Workers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionTort SettlementEquitable ApportionmentFuture BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawMedicaid Lien ComparisonAttorney's FeesCredit against future paymentsPermanent Partial Disability
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 691 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