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. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indagro S.A. v. Bauche S.A.

Indagro S.A. initiated a maritime attachment action against Bauche S.A. to recover demurrage payments allegedly due under a fertilizer sale contract. Indagro claimed to have fulfilled its obligations, but Bauche failed to pay demurrage. Indagro obtained an ex parte Rule B Order, resulting in $804,219.90 of Bauche's funds being restrained. Bauche moved to vacate this order, arguing the contract was not maritime in nature and Indagro's claim was merely a contingent indemnity. The court, presided over by Judge Paul G. Gardephe, ruled that Indagro failed to demonstrate a valid prima facie maritime claim, asserting that the sales contract's primary objective was non-maritime, and the "demurrage" provision was likely a contingent indemnity not yet ripe. Consequently, Bauche's motion to vacate was granted, the Rule B Order was vacated, and the verified complaint was dismissed.

Maritime attachmentRule B OrderDemurrageContract disputeAdmiralty jurisdictionSeverable maritime obligationContingent indemnity claimEnglish lawVacatur of attachmentSale of goods
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07960
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2018

Matter of Juliette S. v. Tykym S.

This case involves an appeal by Juliette S. against Tykym S. concerning the dismissal of her petition to modify a custody and visitation order. The Family Court in New York County had dismissed the petition without a hearing. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, stating that the Family Court erred by dismissing the petition solely based on an 'unfounded' child abuse letter, which was hearsay, and without allowing the mother to respond. The Appellate Division concluded that the mother's allegations of changed circumstances, including the children's expressed fear of the father, were sufficient to warrant a hearing to determine the child's best interests. The matter was remanded back to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Custody modificationvisitation rightschild's best interestsFamily Court proceduredue processhearsay evidencechanged circumstanceschild abuse allegationsparental rightsappellate review
References
3
Case No. 2015-1094 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. against V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., an assignee, concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered between October 2009 and February 2010. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had properly mailed denial of claim forms and established that the amounts sought by the plaintiff exceeded the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the relevant parts of the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFee Schedule DefenseDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsAssignee RightsCivil Court Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brunetti v. Cape Canaveral Shipping Co., SA

Peter Brunetti, a longshoreman, sued Cape Canaveral Shipping Company, S.A., a shipowner, for personal injuries. Canaveral moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) Section 33(b) because Brunetti had accepted compensation under a Memorandum of Informal Conference, which Canaveral contended operated as an assignment of his rights. The court, reexamining prior Second Circuit decisions in light of the Supreme Court's Pallas Shipping Agency Ltd. v. Duris (1983) and the Third Circuit's Costa v. Danais Shipping Co. (1983), determined that a Memorandum of Informal Conference, absent a formal compensation order, does not constitute an "award in a compensation order" sufficient to trigger the assignment provisions of LHWCA Section 33(b). Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Actassignment of claimscompensation ordersinformal conferencesummary judgment motionfederal statutory interpretationpersonal injury claimsthird-party liabilitymaritime lawworker compensation benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

Almonte v. Western Beef, Inc.

Ramon Almonte was injured in a workplace accident involving a garbage compactor and received workers’ compensation benefits as an employee of Western Beef, Inc. He and his wife later sued Western Beef, Western Beef Retail, Inc., and Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc., for personal injuries. Western Beef was dismissed due to workers' compensation exclusivity. Western Beef Retail and Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing worker's compensation bar or corporate dissolution, respectively. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment for Western Beef-Metropolitan Avenue, Inc., as it was dissolved before the accident. The denial of summary judgment for Western Beef Retail was affirmed, as its alter ego argument was not properly raised and lacked sufficient evidence.

Personal injurySummary judgmentCorporate dissolutionAlter ego doctrineEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewConsolidated actionWorkplace accidentGarbage compactorExclusivity defense
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1993

Healey v. All-Inn Trucking, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dated June 1, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant-appellant’s affirmative defense of workers’ compensation. The court reiterated that when the Workers’ Compensation Board determines that injuries fall outside the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Law, an employer who participated in that hearing cannot subsequently raise the defense of compensation coverage in a civil action. The appropriate course of action for the appellant is an administrative appeal of the Board’s decision, rather than pursuing a civil lawsuit, citing precedent from Liss v Trans Auto Sys. and Werner v State of New York.

workers’ compensation defenseaffirmative defense dismissaladministrative appealcivil actionprior board findingemployer liabilityappellate decisionjudicial reviewmotion to dismiss
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 21,364 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