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

Crotona 1967 Corp. v. Vidu Bros.

Plaintiff Crotona 1967 Corporation sought summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against Vidu Brother Corp. and a personal guaranty against Harshad Patel. Defendants argued fraudulent inducement regarding the real estate transaction and the temporary nature of Patel's guaranty. The court granted summary judgment against Vidu Brother Corp., finding their fraudulent inducement defense invalid due to a lack of reasonable reliance and specific contractual clauses. However, a genuine issue of material fact regarding the intended temporary duration of Patel's personal guaranty precluded summary judgment against him. The court denied attorney's fees without a hearing on reasonableness.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementPersonal GuarantyContract LawReal Estate TransactionStatute of FraudsDiversity JurisdictionCorporate LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1995

Big Apple Car, Inc. v. City of New York

This action involves contracts awarded to the plaintiff, Big Apple Car, Inc., by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) for emergency transportation services. Defendants, the City of New York, became aware in 1987 of fraudulent vouchers submitted by the plaintiff, with HRA employees also implicated. A prior appeal upheld the City's right to terminate contracts due to fraud, even though later contracts were awarded to facilitate a criminal investigation. The current order addresses motions for summary judgment regarding breach of contract and fraud in the inducement claims. The Court modified a previous order, denying plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add fraudulent inducement claims, while affirming the denial of the City's summary judgment on its counterclaim.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementFraudulent VouchersContract TerminationCriminal InvestigationAmendment of ComplaintAccount StatedAppellate ReviewHRA Contracts
References
4
Case No. 14-CV-6097 (JFB) (ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2017

Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee v. Walsh

This Memorandum and Order addresses a motion to dismiss a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claim and a New York State law fraudulent inducement claim. Plaintiffs, including Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee, alleged that defendant Edward M. Walsh, Jr. diverted monetary donations intended for the Suffolk County Conservative Party for his personal use, constituting mail and wire fraud. The Court found that while plaintiffs had standing, they failed to plead the mail and wire fraud predicate acts with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Consequently, the RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraudulent inducement claim, dismissing it without prejudice to refiling in state court.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudMotion to DismissPleading StandardsRule 9(b)Fraudulent InducementCivil ProcedureFederal CourtsSuffolk County
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. Astrocosmos Metallurgical, Inc.

Plaintiff MPM Silicones, LLC (assignee of GE) sued Defendant AstroCosmos Metallurgical Inc. for various claims concerning a defective tantalum-lined weak acid reactor, including breach of a 1999 Purchase Agreement and a 2005 Replacement Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, strict products liability, and breaches of implied and express warranties. AstroCosmos moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted dismissal for most claims due to statute of limitations, including the breach of the Purchase Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and breaches of implied and express warranties. However, the court denied dismissal for the breach of the Replacement Agreement claim and partially denied dismissal for the strict products liability claim regarding property damage after May 25, 2004, allowing these claims to proceed.

Breach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationProfessional NegligenceEngineering MalpracticeStrict Products LiabilityImplied WarrantiesExpress WarrantiesStatute of LimitationsEquitable Estoppel
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manliguez v. Joseph

Plaintiff Elma Manliguez brought claims against Martin and Somanti Joseph, alleging involuntary servitude, Alien Tort Claims Act violation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, deprivation of overtime compensation, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendants sought to dismiss all claims, arguing they were time-barred or lacked sufficient grounds. District Judge GARAUFIS denied the motion in its entirety, finding that a private civil cause of action exists for involuntary servitude under 18 U.S.C. § 1584, subject to New York's three-year personal injury statute of limitations. The court also determined that the ten-year statute of limitations from the Torture Victims Protection Act applied to the ATCA claim and that New York law allowed for overtime compensation for domestic employees. Furthermore, the court found the claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation were sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b).

Involuntary ServitudeAlien Tort Claims ActIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConversionOvertime CompensationFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsDomestic Worker Abuse
References
47
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00760
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2020

Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. commenced an action against Tri-Krete Limited, KC Precast, LLC, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and to recover on a payment bond, stemming from work KC Precast hired plaintiff to perform. Tri-Krete moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege Tri-Krete is an alter ego of KC Precast. The Supreme Court partially granted Tri-Krete's motion, dismissing the breach of contract and account stated causes of action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying Tri-Krete's motion in its entirety and reinstating the dismissed causes of action. The court concluded that plaintiff sufficiently alleged Tri-Krete is an alter ego of KC Precast, citing allegations of common control, intermingling of assets, and fraudulent inducement.

Alter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingBreach of ContractAccount StatedFraudulent InducementMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Appellate ReviewConstruction LawPayment Bond Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbanti v. MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Robert Barbanti, formerly an Electronic Specialist at Norfolk Southern Railroad, claims he was fraudulently induced by MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Defendant) to leave his job for a supervisory Signal Inspector position with specific pay. Despite being initially hired as a Signal Inspector, a collective bargaining agreement and a subsequent letter agreement with Local 166 led to him being placed in a lower-paying Electronic Technician role. Barbanti sued for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and negligent/reckless misrepresentation in state court, a case which the Defendant removed to federal court arguing preemption by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court ruled that Barbanti's state law claims are not preempted by the RLA because their resolution does not require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, as the rights and obligations at issue exist independently of any such agreement. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Railway Labor ActPreemptionFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputesFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMotion to Remand
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Societe Nationale D'Exploitation Industrielle Des Tabacslumettes v. Salomon Bros. International Ltd.

Soeiété Nationale d’Exploitation Industrielle des Tabacs et Allumettes (SEITA), a French corporation, sued Salomon Brothers International Limited (SBIL), Salomon Brothers Inc. (SBI), and Salomon Brothers Holding Company, Inc. (SBHC) for alleged securities and commodities fraud. SEITA claimed that Salomon, through its London-based representative, fraudulently induced it to invest in high-risk derivative "Swap Transactions" by misrepresenting them as low-risk, resulting in a loss of nearly $30 million. Salomon moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the alleged fraudulent acts were predominantly foreign. The court, applying the "conduct test" for extraterritorial jurisdiction, determined that the U.S.-based activities of Salomon's offices were merely preparatory or ancillary and did not directly cause SEITA's losses, as the fraud was consummated by the inducement in London and Paris. Consequently, the court granted Salomon's motion to dismiss the case due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Securities FraudCommodities FraudExtraterritorial JurisdictionConduct TestSubject Matter JurisdictionDerivative SwapsFraudulent InducementMotion to DismissFederal CourtInternational Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beshty v. General Motors

Bahjat Beshty, a former employee, sued General Motors Corporation (GM) for alleged age, race, national origin, and religion discrimination, as well as claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, following his termination in October 2000 from his staff research engineer position at GM's GAPC in Honeoye Falls, New York. Beshty claimed to have received oral assurances of job security and a specific supervisor, which were not in writing. GM moved for summary judgment, arguing Beshty's unsatisfactory performance was the legitimate reason for termination. The court granted GM's motion, dismissing all of Beshty's claims. The court found no sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus, noting that facially neutral comments about "culture" and "young" employees were not enough to prove discrimination. Breach of contract claims failed due to Beshty's at-will employment status, and fraudulent inducement claims lacked proof of false statements made knowingly by GM. Finally, a New York Labor Law claim regarding unpaid wages was dismissed as moot because GM had paid the disputed amount before the lawsuit began.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationSummary JudgmentAt-Will EmploymentBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementLabor Law
References
65
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 373 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