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

Litvinov v. Hodson

The provided text is a dissenting opinion from Scudder, P.J., and Smith, J. They argue to grant the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment and dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The case involves a plaintiff who suffered an arm injury and subsequently signed a release of all claims against defendants Eileen M. Hodson and Jeremy L. Hodson for $4,000. The plaintiff later sought to invalidate this release, claiming mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, fraud, and misrepresentation by Foy (an agent of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company). The dissenting judges contend that the language of the release is clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for rescission based on mutual mistake or fraud. They cite previous case law emphasizing the binding nature of clear releases and the stringent requirements for setting them aside.

Release of ClaimsSummary JudgmentMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeFraudMisrepresentationDissenting OpinionContract LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimPersonal Injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schlesinger v. Levine

The plaintiff sought to invalidate a lease and recover rent and security, alleging mutual mistake or defendant's fraud concerning zoning regulations. The plaintiff intended to use the premises for "iron work," but the property, formerly business-zoned, had become residential, though a prior nonconforming use existed. The lease stipulated the tenant's responsibility for obtaining a certificate of occupancy and complying with laws, explicitly stating no landlord representation regarding ironwork use. The court found the plaintiff was fully informed about the zoning issues, including legal representation during lease signing. Consequently, the claims of mistake and fraud were deemed untenable, leading to a judgment for the defendant, dismissal of the complaint, and an award of $375 to the landlord for three months' rent.

Zoning RegulationsNonconforming UseLease ValidityContract FraudMutual MistakeTenant ResponsibilityCertificate of OccupancyRent ArrearsProperty LawJudicial Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00089 [201 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Myristica, LLC v. Camp Myristica, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a mortgage foreclosure action initiated by Myristica, LLC against Camp Myristica, Ltd. and other defendants, including David Kramer. The core dispute revolves around a stipulation of settlement reached by the parties, which resolved the original foreclosure action and cross-claims asserted by David Kramer. Kramer subsequently moved to vacate this stipulation, alleging mutual mistake and fraud regarding the premium membership status of Ron E. Chugerman and Alyson Chugerman within Camp Myristica, Ltd. The Supreme Court denied Kramer's motion to vacate, finding the stipulation binding and that Kramer failed to demonstrate good cause. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying Kramer's motion to vacate the stipulation, noting that Kramer's arguments regarding mutual mistake and fraud were unpreserved or lacked merit. The Court also dismissed Kramer's appeal from a later order denying his motion to reargue, as no appeal lies from such a denial.

Settlement stipulationVacate stipulationMortgage foreclosureCorporate governancePremium membershipFraud allegationMutual mistakeAppellate reviewUnpreserved argumentOpen court stipulation
References
10
Case No. ADJ2453878
Regular
Mar 02, 2017

SEAN COLGAN vs. NO VACANCY TRANSPORT, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denied reconsideration of a settlement. The applicant sought to set aside the settlement, alleging a mistake of fact regarding the inclusion of a serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board found that any misunderstanding by the applicant was a unilateral mistake, not sufficient to rescind the agreement without a showing of fraud, mutual mistake, duress, or undue influence. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the defendant's intent to settle the claim was given great weight and not overturned.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedSettlementGood CauseFraudMutual Mistake of FactDuressUndue InfluenceUnilateral MistakeSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. ADJ9865743
Regular
Oct 16, 2018

FEI YE vs. HUGO BOSS USA, INC, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Administered by AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order approving a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement, alleging fraud and malpractice by his former attorney. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to prove fraud, mutual mistake, duress, or undue influence to set aside the C&R. Although the Board noted procedural concerns regarding the ex parte submission of the C&R by the applicant's former counsel after being dismissed, it concluded the applicant received due process at a subsequent hearing and failed to establish good cause to rescind the settlement. The applicant's petition was also subject to dismissal for lack of proper verification.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCJPetition to Set AsideGood CauseFraudMutual MistakeDuressUndue InfluenceVerification
References
3
Case No. ADJ13556297
Regular
Jun 06, 2025

BRIAN SPALDING vs. ELITE SHEET METAL AND DRAIN GUTTERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered the Petition for Reconsideration filed by State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) concerning a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. SCIF argued they forgot to take credit for permanent disability advances and sought to set aside the order approving the C&R. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report, which found no good cause, such as fraud or mutual mistake, to set aside the agreement, stating a unilateral mistake is insufficient. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition within 60 days as mandated by Labor Code section 5909. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemTransmission of CaseReport and RecommendationCompromise and ReleasePermanent Disability IndemnityPD advancesUnilateral Mistake
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1975

Nelson v. Dumpson

The court annulled the determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services, which had affirmed the New York City commissioner's decision to recoup an overpayment of public assistance from the petitioner. The overpayment was due to the inclusion of the petitioner's son, Frank, in the budget while he was outside the household. The initial determination was based on section 348.4 of the regulations of the State Department of Social Services (18 NYCRR 348.4), concerning 'suspected fraud' requiring evidence of willful withholding of information. However, the record from the fair hearing lacked substantial evidence to establish willful withholding or fraud. The petitioner testified to disclosing Frank's absence, and respondent's records did not contradict this. This annulment does not preclude the respondent from seeking relief for overpayment due to honest mistake.

public assistanceoverpaymentrecoupmentwillful withholdingfraudfair hearingsocial services regulationssubstantial evidenceannulmentremand
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 935 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