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

Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs, Candace Curtis and Heather Curtis, appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The first order denied their motion to amend the complaint to add fraud-based causes of action, and the second denied their motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, as such orders are not appealable. However, the court modified the August 3, 2001, order by granting infant plaintiff Candace Curtis leave to assert causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. This decision was based on the principle that fraud can exist even when misrepresentations are made to a third party (the mother) but result in injury to the plaintiff (the infant). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend for Heather Curtis on statute of limitations grounds related to her negligence claims.

Personal InjuryFraudulent MisrepresentationConstructive FraudFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationPrenatal InjuriesFetusEmployer LiabilityStatute of LimitationsAmendment of Complaint
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheehan v. United States Postal Service

The plaintiff, a former letter carrier, sued the Union (Branch 81 and Branch 358) and Michael Hoag (Branch 81 president) for breach of duty of fair representation, fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful discharge, and conspiracy after her termination from USPS. She alleged that Hoag falsely claimed to have filed an appeal for her termination grievance. The Court found the federal breach of duty of fair representation claim to be time-barred. It further ruled that the state law claims for wrongful discharge and conspiracy were preempted by federal labor law. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim was also deemed preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationFraudulent MisrepresentationWrongful DischargeConspiracy (Labor Law)Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2015

Rana v. Islam

Mashud Parves Rana sued his former employers, Monirul Islam and Fahima Tahsina Prova, alleging violations of federal and state labor laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law, alongside various New York state common law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of insufficient pleading for fraudulent misrepresentation, consular immunity, and insufficient service of process. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding the fraudulent misrepresentation claim sufficiently pled and the defendants not immune from suit. Although there was an issue of fact regarding service, the Court found that proper service could still be obtained and ordered service on the defendants' attorneys.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationConsular ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionService of ProcessTrafficking Victims ProtectionFair Labor StandardsNew York State Labor LawDomestic Worker ExploitationDiplomatic PrivilegesMotion to Dismiss
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orlando v. Novurania of America, Inc.

John Orlando sued Novurania of America, Inc. for breach of express warranty, implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent design/manufacturing concerning a boat purchased in 1996 that later developed cracks. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims. The District Court dismissed the implied warranty claims (Counts II and III) as time-barred under New York's UCC § 2-725(2), as they accrued at the time of purchase in 1996. The negligent design claim (Count V) was dismissed for merely restating contractual duties. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim (Count IV) was barred by New York's economic loss rule, as only economic damages were alleged. Demands for punitive damages and attorney's fees were also stricken. Only the breach of express warranty claim (Count I) survives.

Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent DesignEconomic Loss RulePunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Commercial CodeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
25
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. 11-1026
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2011

Nicholas v. Oren (In Re Nicholas)

Matthew Oren (pro se) filed a complaint in state court against Stephen Nicholas (Debtor) and others, alleging various torts related to Nicholas's bankruptcy case and his debt to Oren. The action was removed to bankruptcy court. Nicholas subsequently moved to hold Oren in contempt for violating his Chapter 13 discharge injunction by pursuing pre-petition claims. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Carla E. Craig, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Oren's complaint, finding that his causes of action either failed to state a claim (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, threat of litigation, libel and slander, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment) or were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel (fraudulent misrepresentation and related unjust enrichment). Furthermore, the court found Oren's sixth cause of action (fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a deed in lieu of foreclosure) was a pre-petition claim discharged in bankruptcy and barred by the Statute of Frauds. The court also granted Nicholas's motion to hold Oren in contempt, ruling that Oren willfully violated Nicholas's discharge injunction by continuing to pursue discharged claims. Due to Oren's bad faith and egregious conduct, Nicholas was awarded attorney's fees and $5,000 in punitive damages. Oren's cross-motion and cross-application for various forms of relief were denied.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionContemptRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessFraudulent MisrepresentationUnjust EnrichmentLibel
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 648 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