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

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Freeport v. Sanders

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed their complaint after granting the third-party defendants' motion for renewal. The appellate court found that Special Term erred in dismissing the complaint on collateral estoppel grounds, as the movants failed to demonstrate that the issue was necessarily decided in a prior Workers' Compensation Board proceeding. The Board's finding regarding a settlement without insurer consent did not require a determination of past workers' compensation payments. Furthermore, Special Term erred on equitable estoppel grounds, noting that this doctrine applies against governmental subdivisions only when manifest injustice is shown, which was not the case here. Additionally, equitable estoppel was not available to the third-party defendants as no representations were made to them by the plaintiff, and no claim was asserted against them. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the third-party defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Collateral EstoppelEquitable EstoppelGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissAppealGovernmental SubdivisionCivil ProcedureAppellate Practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robare v. Fortune Brands, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Clinton County, which granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff alleged that they contracted throat and tongue cancer as a result of smoking the defendants' cigarettes from 1961 to 1991. The primary issue on appeal was whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should prevent the defendants from using the three-year statute of limitations as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for equitable estoppel. This was because the plaintiff had timely awareness of the facts requiring further inquiry before the statute of limitations expired, and did not demonstrate a unique fiduciary relationship with the defendants.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCancer LitigationSmoking Related IllnessFiduciary RelationshipMisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anton W. v. Nadine V.

This case concerns a paternity proceeding initiated by the petitioner father for the child Nia, born January 18, 1992. Despite blood tests excluding him as the biological father, the petitioner sought an order of filiation based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The respondent mother had consistently represented the petitioner as the child's father to family, hospital staff, and the CWA caseworker, accepting his financial and emotional support and allowing a strong father-child bond to develop. The court found the respondent's later denial of paternity incredible and applied equitable estoppel, concluding it was in the child's best interests to maintain the established father-child relationship. Consequently, an order of filiation was granted to the petitioner, adjudicating him as the child's father.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelOrder of FiliationBest Interests of the ChildFather-Child RelationshipBlood Test ExclusionChild Protective ProceedingParental RightsFamily LawChild Support
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04683
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2018

Matter of K.G. v. C.H.

This case involves K.G., the ex-partner of C.H., seeking parental standing for custody and visitation of A., C.H.'s adopted child. K.G.'s claim is based on a 2007 agreement with C.H. to adopt and raise a child together, and alternatively, on equitable estoppel principles as defined by _Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C._ The Supreme Court denied K.G. standing, finding the 2007 agreement terminated when the romantic relationship ended. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding regarding the termination of the preadoption agreement but remanded the case for further proceedings on the equitable estoppel claim, noting the incomplete record and the necessity of hearing the child's voice.

Parental StandingEquitable EstoppelAdoption AgreementSame-Sex CouplesChild CustodyVisitation RightsDomestic Relations LawPreadoption AgreementAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
29
Case No. 09 Civ. 8197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International

This case involves a financial dispute between Citibank, N.A. and Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC (MSIP) stemming from a credit default swap agreement. Citibank sued MSIP for breach of contract, and MSIP filed counterclaims including reformation and equitable estoppel. Previously, the court granted Citibank's motion for judgment on its breach of contract claim and dismissed MSIP's initial counterclaims. In this current ruling, the court addresses MSIP's amended counterclaims. The court denies Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding MSIP's counterclaim for reformation based on mutual mistake, finding it plausible. However, Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted for MSIP's counterclaim for equitable estoppel, which is dismissed with prejudice, as MSIP could not show prejudice related to the original swap based on later communications.

Credit Default SwapBreach of ContractReformation (contract law)Equitable EstoppelJudgment on the PleadingsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Mutual MistakeFinancial InstitutionsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. Beale

Petitioner sought a stay of arbitration and a declaratory judgment arguing that a police vehicle operated by Respondent Beale lacked Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) coverage for an October 2011 accident. Although the court initially agreed that the policy did not mandate SUM coverage for police vehicles based on the law at the time of execution, it ultimately applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court found that the petitioner had delayed over four years in denying coverage, participating in discovery, negotiations, and arbitration, leading the respondent to rely on the belief of coverage and settle an underlying negligence action. Due to this unreasonable delay and the resulting prejudice to the respondent, the court estopped the petitioner from denying SUM coverage. Consequently, the petition for a stay of arbitration was denied, and the respondents' motions to proceed with SUM arbitration and for a declaratory judgment of equitable estoppel were granted.

Equitable EstoppelSUM CoverageUninsured/Underinsured Motorist CoverageInsurance Policy InterpretationStay of ArbitrationDeclaratory JudgmentPolice Vehicle CoverageDelay in Denying CoveragePrejudiceCPLR 7503 (b)
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 672 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