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

Shamshovich v. Shvartsman

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and secured a judgment against the defendant, Samuel Racer, in 2000. This judgment, however, was not formally entered until 2010. Subsequently, in 2012, Racer moved to vacate the judgment, contending that the plaintiff had abandoned the action by failing to timely enter the judgment, citing 22 NYCRR 202.48. The Supreme Court initially granted Racer's motion without providing an explanation. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, denying Racer's motion to vacate and reinstating the original judgment. The appellate court determined that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was inapplicable as no further judicial action was required for the judgment's entry, and Racer failed to present any other valid grounds for vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a).

Fiduciary DutyJudgment VacaturAppellate ReviewProcedural RulesCivil ProcedureDefault JudgmentTimelinessRule 22 NYCRR 202.48CPLR 5015(a)Kings County
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grodotzke v. Seaford Avenue Corp.

Plaintiffs, consisting of trustees of employee benefit plans, fiduciaries, and a union president, initiated an action against Seaford Avenue Corporation, G and M Mechanical, Inc., George Luksch, and Michael Scott. The plaintiffs sought recovery for unpaid fringe benefit contributions and alleged breach of fiduciary duty under the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. They contended that the corporate defendants operated as a single employer or alter egos, and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by misusing plan assets. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss claims relating to the single employer/alter ego status, violations of the collective bargaining agreement (including double-breasting), and the individual defendants' breach of fiduciary duties. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, deeming it conclusory and essentially moot.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementSingle EmployerAlter EgoDouble-breastingFringe BenefitsUnpaid ContributionsMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1995

Scott v. Dime Sav. Bank of New York, FSB

The Scotts (Evelyn A. Scott and Leon Scott) sued The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (Dime) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. A jury found in favor of the Scotts on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, awarding $36,000, and assigning 54% fault to the Scotts for negligence. The Dime moved for judgment as a matter of law to dismiss these claims and for summary judgment on its counterclaim for mortgage foreclosure. The court denied the Dime's motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, upholding the jury's verdict due to evidence of a fiduciary relationship beyond a simple debtor-creditor, arising from the Dime's promotion of investments through its affiliate, Invest. The court granted the Dime's motion for foreclosure on the Scotts' mortgage, conditional on Mrs. Scott receiving a life tenancy. The court reasoned that the $36,000 damages pertained to investment losses, not the loan's validity, and the Scotts were in default. The awarded damages were set off against the amounts owed on the counterclaim.

Fiduciary Duty BreachNegligence ClaimsMortgage ForeclosureStock Market InvestmentsGlass-Steagall Act ImplicationsBank Affiliate LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewJudgment as Matter of LawEquitable DefensesPro Se Representation
References
29
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03367 [239 AD3d 1060]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2025

Lambos v. Karabinis

Plaintiff William K. Lambos, a shareholder of B.K. Associates International, Inc. (BK), commenced a shareholder derivative action against defendants Anastasios P. Karabinis and Paul Karabinis, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste. Plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in undisclosed interest-bearing loan transactions between 2008 and 2015 involving businesses where Karabinis had financial interests. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, deeming the action untimely based on a three-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty had not yet accrued due to the absence of open repudiation of fiduciary obligations or a judicial settlement, and defendants conceded the ongoing existence of fiduciary duties. The Appellate Division also found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing for failure to state a cause of action, as the documentary evidence did not conclusively refute plaintiff's allegations of concealment. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Limitation of ActionsBreach of Fiduciary DutySufficiency of PleadingCorporate WasteShareholder Derivative ActionStatute of LimitationsAppellate PracticeDismissal MotionFiduciary ObligationOpen Repudiation
References
19
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08848 [123 AD3d 933]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2014

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Fiduciary Insurance Co. of America

This case involves an appeal by Fiduciary Insurance Company of America (appellant) from an order and judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (respondent), as subrogee of Peter Daversa. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition to confirm and denied Fiduciary's cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order, finding it merged into the judgment, and affirmed the judgment. The court applied closer judicial scrutiny to the compulsory arbitration award, determining that the arbitrator's decision had ample evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious. The appellant's contentions regarding proximate cause, burden of proof, and prejudgment interest were found to be without merit.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationInsurance SubrogationAppellate ReviewJudicial ScrutinyEvidentiary SupportArbitrator's DeterminationProximate CausationBurden of ProofPrejudgment InterestCPLR Article 75 Proceeding
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 28102
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2018

Pozner v. Fox Broadcasting Co.

Cliff Pozner, a former executive at Fox Broadcasting Company, was terminated following sexual harassment complaints from employees. Pozner subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Fox for breach of his employment contract. In response, Fox filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, referencing company handbooks and established policies. Pozner moved to dismiss these counterclaims, contending that the employee handbooks lacked contractual enforceability and that his actions did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty under prevailing legal standards. The court upheld the breach of contract counterclaim, recognizing that the handbooks were explicitly integrated into Pozner's employment agreement, but dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim, stating that sexual harassment alone, without direct actions against the employer's financial interests, does not typically establish a breach of loyalty claim in New York.

Employment contractBreach of contractBreach of fiduciary dutySexual harassmentCounterclaimsMotion to dismissDuty of loyaltyCorporate policiesEmployee handbooksExecutive termination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1985

Angel Music, Inc. v. ABC Sports, Inc.

Angel Music, Inc., along with a class of music publishers, sued ABC Sports, Inc. and The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (Fox), alleging copyright infringement against ABC and breach of fiduciary duty against Fox. The copyright infringement claim stemmed from ABC's alleged unauthorized use of a copyrighted song in an Olympics broadcast. Angel Music contended Fox, acting as their trustee and agent, breached its fiduciary duty by failing to enforce their synchronization rights. Fox moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the breach of fiduciary duty was a state law claim without diversity. The court granted Fox's motion, concluding there was insufficient factual overlap for pendent party jurisdiction but allowed Angel Music to renew the claim after discovery if a relevant defense involving Fox emerged.

Copyright InfringementBreach of Fiduciary DutySubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionClass ActionSynchronization RightsMusic PublishersTelevision Producers
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01758
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2016

Cusimano v. Schnurr

This case involves a long-standing dispute among family members who own various real estate businesses. Plaintiffs Rita Cusimano and Dominic J. Cusimano filed an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, accounting malpractice, and aiding and abetting fraud against accountants Andrew V. Schnurr, Michael Gerard Norman, CPA, P.C., and third-party intervenors Bernard V. Strianese and Bernadette Strianese. The Supreme Court had previously stayed arbitration of many claims as time-barred. Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division, First Department, reconsidered the statute of limitations issues. The court modified the judgment, vacating the stay of arbitration for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Norman defendants and intervenors that fall within the six-year statute of limitations, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyAccounting MalpracticeFraud ClaimsArbitration StayContinuous Representation DoctrineEquitable EstoppelFamily Business DisputeReal Estate EntitiesInquiry Notice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Iorio v. Winebow, Inc.

Plaintiff Janet D'lorio initiated an action against Defendant Winebow, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty by failing to provide plan documents and by misrepresenting benefits under its long-term disability and life insurance plan. Specifically, she brought claims under ERISA § 502(c)(1) for failure to furnish requested information and ERISA § 502(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duties. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the ERISA § 502(c)(1) claim because the plaintiff only made oral requests for information, which is insufficient under the statute. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim, finding that equitable relief in the form of a surcharge remedy for monetary compensation might be appropriate for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty through misrepresentations and failure to provide a proper summary plan description.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee BenefitsDisability BenefitsLife InsuranceSummary Plan DescriptionMisrepresentationMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefSurcharge Remedy
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 1,950 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