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
Jun 15, 1989

Di Sisto v. Messenger

The case involves an action to recover damages for breach of contract and to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, brought by the plaintiff against defendants Lois Messenger and James Messenger. The defendants appealed from a Supreme Court judgment in Westchester County, which favored the plaintiff with $22,826.26, awarded a judgment of foreclosure, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the lower court's determination was supported by evidence. It was found that the plaintiff had yielded supervisory control of his laborers to James Messenger, who was a plumbing contractor, making the laborers special employees of Messenger. Consequently, the defendants were not justified in terminating the oral construction contract based on alleged negligent performance by these laborers, and their counterclaims for remedial repairs were correctly dismissed.

Breach of ContractMechanic's LienForeclosureNonjury TrialAppealSupervisory ControlSpecial EmployeeNegligent PerformanceCounterclaimsConstruction Contract
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Casse

The debtor, Robert E. Casse, moved to vacate the foreclosure sale of his home, arguing it violated the automatic stay after his Chapter 13 filing. Key Bank National Association opposed, contending the Chapter 13 case was void due to a prior court order dismissing Casse's third Chapter 11 case "with prejudice" to prevent serial filings. The court denied Casse's motion, finding his Chapter 13 filing violated the previous order, which was a proper exercise of judicial authority under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the Chapter 13 case was dismissed as a nullity. The court reserved jurisdiction to consider imposing sanctions against the debtor.

BankruptcyForeclosureAutomatic StaySerial FilerDismissal with PrejudiceChapter 13Chapter 11Bad Faith FilingJudicial AuthorityAbuse of Process
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alibrandi Building Systems, Inc. v. Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a Lien Law article 3-A lien foreclosure action. Defendants, comprised of various Iron Workers' Funds and Union entities, brought cross-claims against codefendants Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co., Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and A & J Steel Erectors, seeking unpaid fringe benefits and union dues. Pahl and Fidelity appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss these cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order, striking demands for liquidated damages across all cross-claims and specific interest demands in one, but otherwise affirmed, ruling that ERISA did not preempt these remedial claims. The decision clarified that while principal sums and interest were recoverable under various lien and finance laws, liquidated damages were not.

Lien LawERISAState Finance LawPublic ImprovementMechanics LiensUnpaid BenefitsUnion DuesLiquidated DamagesContract ActionPayment Bond
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oneida Indian Nat. of New York v. Madison County

The Oneida Indian Nation of New York filed a complaint challenging foreclosure actions initiated by Madison County on Nation-owned lands. The County's repeated initiation and withdrawal of foreclosure proceedings, followed by a decision to proceed without withdrawal after a Supreme Court ruling in a related case (Sherrill), prompted the Nation to seek a preliminary injunction. The court, invoking the All Writs Act, granted the injunction to prevent the state court foreclosure actions from rendering the federal court's jurisdiction moot and to preserve its ability to decide the complex issues of tribal land amenability to foreclosure. The decision emphasized the significance and complexity of the case, requiring a stay of state proceedings to allow for proper development of the record. The Nation was required to post a $3,000,000.00 security.

Indian LawTribal SovereigntyProperty TaxationForeclosureFederal JurisdictionAll Writs ActPreliminary InjunctionIntergovernmental RelationsState Court InterferenceAbstention
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mosello v. Ali, Inc. (In Re Mosello)

The Mosellos appealed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of their adversary proceeding, arguing that a mortgage release by Ameri-first Mortgage Corp. (the Bank) extinguished its statutory lien, making the Bank an unsecured creditor. The bankruptcy court determined that the Bank's judgment of foreclosure constituted a 'money judgment' under CPLR § 5203(a), thus giving its lien priority over the Mosellos' judicial lien. Additionally, the bankruptcy court found that a hypothetical bona fide purchaser would have had constructive notice of the foreclosure judgment despite an erroneous release document. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, agreeing that the judgment of foreclosure was a 'money judgment' and that the release did not vacate the financial aspect of the judgment. It also concluded that no hypothetical purchaser could have been bona fide due to the evident inconsistencies in the filed documents.

BankruptcyMortgage ForeclosureReal Property LienJudgment LienJudicial LienConstructive NoticeBona Fide PurchaserCPLR11 U.S.C. § 544(a)Adversary Proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1987

Culver v. County of Rensselaer

The plaintiff appealed an order from Rensselaer County Court that granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. This case concerns an in rem foreclosure proceeding initiated by the County of Rensselaer against the plaintiff's property, which was later sold at public auction. Plaintiff subsequently commenced an RPAPL article 15 proceeding to vacate the foreclosure and tax sale, alleging lack of proper notice under RPTL 1124. The County Court dismissed the action, finding it barred by RPTL 1136 (7). The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the action was time-barred as it was commenced more than two years after the deed was recorded, and that CPLR 204 (a) did not toll the statutory period. The court further ruled that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the validity of the foreclosure proceeding and the adequacy of notice were, or should have been, raised in a prior summary proceeding involving the same parties and property.

In Rem ForeclosureTax SaleRPTLRPAPL Article 15Statute of LimitationsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelNotice RequirementsAppellate ReviewReal Property Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Atanas

Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC initiated an action to foreclose a mortgage on a property in Webster, New York, after defendants Eric L. Atanas and Kathleen M. Pink failed to appear. Plaintiff moved for a default judgment and foreclosure and sale. The Court granted the default judgment, finding that Plaintiff had satisfied all procedural requirements under the RPAPL. However, the request for attorney's fees was denied due to the lack of contemporaneous time records. The judgment of foreclosure and sale was also denied without prejudice, as Plaintiff failed to adequately substantiate the requested damages with reasonable certainty, and was granted leave to renew with proper documentation.

Mortgage ForeclosureDefault JudgmentAttorney's FeesReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDamagesSubstantiation of DamagesContemporaneous Time RecordsJudicial DiscretionMotion to Renew
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1989

Scappaticci v. Willet

The plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied their motion for summary judgment. The defendant, Ursula Willet, asserted a defense of fraud, alleging the plaintiff conspired with her former attorney, Jack Solerwitz. The appellate court found no admissible evidence to support the defendant's fraud claim or to create a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the defendant was not entitled to further discovery due to a lack of showing potential evidence and failure to seek disclosure earlier. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was reversed, the plaintiff's motion was granted, and the matter was remitted for the entry of a judgment of foreclosure.

Mortgage ForeclosureSummary JudgmentFraud DefenseAppellate DecisionNassau CountyEvidentiary ProofDisclosureAttorney MisconductCivil ProcedureReal Estate Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. Puente De Brooklyn Realty Corp.

The case concerns a plaintiff who, after an initial partnership failed, entered an oral agreement with Ralph Feldman to renovate and operate a bed and breakfast. Feldman, through his corporation Puente De Brooklyn Realty Corporation, acquired a co-tenancy interest. Mortgage arrears led to foreclosure, and defendant Gail De Raffele purchased the property with Feldman's funds. The plaintiff sued Feldman, Puente, De Raffele, and Feldman's attorney Joseph Pogostin for conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The appellate court dismissed claims against Pogostin and De Raffele, finding insufficient evidence. However, it upheld the finding that Puente, aided by Feldman, breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by contributing to the foreclosure. The court reduced the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff to $35,000, representing her original investment.

Fraudulent SchemeBreach of Fiduciary DutyCo-tenancyForeclosure SaleReal Estate DisputeConspiracy to DefraudAppellate ReviewDamages CalculationMortgage ArrearsPartnership Agreement
References
29
Case No. CV 95-1477
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1996

Maggio v. Leeward Ventures, Ltd.

Leonard Maggio, the plaintiff, initiated this action seeking specific performance of a real estate contract for the sale of the Blue Water Marina property and damages for breach of contract against Leeward Ventures, Barry Relinger, and Gary A. Panasuk. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lacking subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a cognizable claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denied the defendants' motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Regarding the failure to state a claim, the Court denied dismissal for claims related to an alleged '1994 Contract' but granted dismissal for claims derived from prior Consent Orders in a separate foreclosure action, finding Maggio was not an intended third-party beneficiary of those orders. Additionally, Maggio's cross-motion to consolidate this action with the prior foreclosure action was denied.

Specific PerformanceReal Property ContractBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Statute of FraudsThird-Party BeneficiaryForeclosure Action
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 32 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