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. 2019 NY Slip Op 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Capital Bus. Credit LLC v. Tailgate Clothing Co., Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06664
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2022

Szypula v. Szypula

This case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding the equitable distribution of marital property in a divorce action between Meredith Szypula (wife) and John Szypula (husband). The primary dispute centers on the classification of military pension credits earned by the husband prior to the marriage but subsequently "bought back" using marital funds during the marriage. Supreme Court initially classified these credits as marital property. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this determination, ruling that the nine years of pre-marriage military service credits constitute the husband's separate property. The court reasoned that these credits were earned as compensation for services rendered before the marriage. While the credits themselves were deemed separate property, the marital funds utilized for their purchase are subject to equitable distribution. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to amend the qualified domestic relations order to reflect this distinction.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertyPension CreditsMilitary PensionDivorceAppellate ReviewDomestic Relations LawBuy Back CreditsPre-Marital Assets
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Plaintiff Orrin Anderson, a debtor, had his credit card debt with Credit One discharged in bankruptcy, but the debt remained on his credit report as 'charged off.' Anderson reopened his bankruptcy case and filed a class action complaint against Credit One for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. Credit One moved to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Bankruptcy Court denied. Credit One appealed the denial to compel arbitration as of right and sought leave to appeal the denials to strike class allegations and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied Credit One's motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction or interlocutory appeal for the additional issues.

Bankruptcy Discharge InjunctionClass Action WaiverSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPendent Appellate JurisdictionArbitration AgreementFederal Statutory ClaimsContempt PowerPunitive DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1984

Pottala v. Pottala

The case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding the equitable distribution of marital property and a maintenance award. The parties, married for nine years, divorced due to the defendant's cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant contested the plaintiff's pension interest, the $110 weekly maintenance, and the accuracy of her net worth statement. The court upheld the net worth statement and affirmed the indefinite maintenance award, recognizing the plaintiff's self-sufficiency efforts despite limited earning potential. The judgment was modified to adjust maintenance arrears by crediting the defendant with a portion of cashed tax refund checks.

Equitable DistributionMaintenance AwardMarital PropertyPension RightsNet Worth StatementDivorce DecreeAppellate ReviewFinancial DisparitySpousal SupportCruel and Inhuman Treatment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Arena v. Crown Asphalt Co.

Thomas Arena (decedent) sustained a work-related foot injury in 1980, leading to workers' compensation benefits and subsequent renal failure. Decedent and his wife (claimant) filed a third-party medical malpractice action against treating physicians and the hospital, which was settled in 1988 through a structured settlement. A stipulation between the carrier and decedent outlined the carrier's offset credit against decedent's workers' compensation claim and reserved rights against future death benefits claims, but claimant was not a signatory. After decedent's death in 1993, claimant filed for death benefits, prompting the carrier to seek an offset credit from the third-party settlement proceeds. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the carrier entitled to a credit, but later reversed itself, ruling against any credit. The appeals court determined that the carrier sufficiently preserved its offset rights through a general release signed by both claimant and decedent. However, it found no clear agreement on the specific offset amount in the stipulation or settlement that applied to claimant's death benefits. Consequently, the Board's decision of zero credit was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a factual determination of the precise credit amount.

Offset CreditThird-Party SettlementDeath Benefits ClaimRenal FailureMedical MalpracticeStipulation AgreementGeneral ReleaseWaiver of RightsStructured SettlementApportionment of Damages
References
12
Case No. ADJ7251479
Regular
Jun 02, 2015

ROBERT NORTON vs. NEO DIGITAL, A DIVISION OF 20TH CENTURY FOX/FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP

This case concerns defendant Neo Digital's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying a credit for alleged permanent disability overpayment. The WCJ previously found defendant was not entitled to a credit of $7,350.86 against benefits and liens. The WCAB denied reconsideration, agreeing that allowing such a credit against future medical treatment would disrupt the applicant's ability to receive necessary care. The Board emphasized that credit allowance is discretionary and equitable principles, including protecting the applicant from prejudice, guide such decisions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability OverpaymentAgreed Medical ExaminerStipulated AwardCredit for OverpaymentLabor Code § 4909Discretionary AuthorityEquitable PrinciplesDisruptive BenefitsPrejudice to Employee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2000

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.

Stephenson Equity Company (SECO), a plaintiff-intervenor, moved to compel non-party Swiss American Securities Inc. (SASI) to produce documents related to a pooled omnibus account held by Credit Suisse (Zurich) at SASI, believing these documents would identify beneficial owners, specifically Credit Bancorp. SASI opposed, arguing it lacked control over such specific information as broker-dealer regulations do not mandate identifying ultimate beneficial owners in pooled corporate accounts, and also referencing Swiss bank privacy laws. The court ultimately denied SECO's motion, concluding that SECO failed to demonstrate that SASI had the requisite control or access to the Credit Bancorp-specific documents in the ordinary course of business.

Discovery motionMotion to compelRule 45 FRCPSubpoena duces tecumBroker-dealer regulationsOmnibus accountsBeneficial ownershipCorporate controlSister corporationsSecurities law
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,265 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