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 03130 [238 AD3d 589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Empanada Fresca LLC v. 1 BK St. Corp.

Empanada Fresca LLC (tenant) and Jose Rodriguez (guarantor) appealed a Supreme Court order regarding their lease dispute with 1 BK Street Corp. (landlord), which involved claims of fraud, breach of lease, and a "good guy" guaranty. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the tenant's claims for fraudulent inducement, rescission, promissory estoppel, and breach of implied covenant, deeming them duplicative or inapplicable. However, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the guarantor, Jose Rodriguez, thereby dismissing the landlord's counterclaim for breach of guaranty. This modification was based on the finding that the guarantor had substantially complied with the terms of the "good guy" guaranty, despite a three-day short notice to vacate, as the landlord suffered no prejudice. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the tenant's right to amend its complaint to seek consequential damages, citing public policy against parties avoiding liability for gross negligence.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseFraudulent InducementBreach of LeaseGood Guy GuarantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRent AbatementPre-Existing ConditionsGas Service Interruption
References
15
Case No. CV-23-0571, CV-23-1310
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Judith Patterson-Djalo

Claimant Judith Pattertson-Djalo sustained work-related injuries, leading to an established schedule loss of use (SLU) award. Oriska Insurance Company, the carrier, and Rashbi Management Inc., a guarantor of employer premiums, appealed decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling that Rashbi was not a necessary party in interest and lacked standing, as the carrier was solely liable for indemnity and medical costs. The Board also imposed a penalty on Oriska Insurance Company for failing to timely pay the SLU award. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, clarifying that contractual disputes between the carrier, employer, and guarantor regarding retrospective premiums were outside the Board's jurisdiction and not proper for appeal within the workers' compensation claim.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewParty in InterestStandingRetrospective Rating ProgramPremium GuarantorPenalty for Non-PaymentJurisdiction DisputeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ4069708 (VNO 0380892) ADJ691020 (VNO 0380894)
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

CAROL ENRIQUEZ vs. VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The applicant sustained two industrial injuries as a secretary in 1994 and 1996. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decisions, finding applicant is 100% permanently disabled and ordered apportionment between the two injuries. The Board amended the decisions to include the left hip in the 1994 injury and clarified CIGA's role as a guarantor, not an insurer. CIGA was relieved of administering future medical treatment awards, and reimbursement from the self-insured employer can be pursued in supplemental proceedings.

ApportionmentBenson exceptionCIGACompensable consequence injuriesIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityReconsiderationSelf-insuredSuccessive injuriesVictor Valley Union High School District
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kreatsoulas v. Freights of the Levant Pride & the Levant Fortune

This admiralty action, brought by Peter Kreatsoulas, involves a $500,000 loan made to Levant Line, a steamship company, which is now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The loan was secured by personal guaranties from five individuals and an assignment of freights from the Owners of the vessels LEVANT PRIDE and LEVANT FORTUNE. The Personal Guarantors moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the contracts were not maritime. The court concluded that neither the personal guaranty nor the freight assignment contracts fell under federal admiralty jurisdiction, as they were too attenuated from maritime interests. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, and the action was dismissed without prejudice.

Admiralty LawMaritime JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal GuarantyLoan AgreementPromissory NotesAssignment of FreightsMotion to DismissPendent Party JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Episode USA, Inc.

Episode USA, Inc., a debtor in chapter 11 bankruptcy, guaranteed a non-debtor affiliate's lease. The affiliate defaulted, leading the landlord, L.H. Charney Associates, to file a claim against Episode. Episode objected to the claim, seeking to cap the unsecured portion under § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code and expunge the administrative priority claim. The court sustained Episode's objection, ruling that the § 502(b)(6) cap applies to debtor-guarantors and that the administrative priority claim was not justified as Episode received no benefit from the lease. However, the court rejected Episode's argument for a reduction of the unsecured claim based on mitigation, citing New York law.

BankruptcyLease GuaranteeLandlord-Tenant LawClaim ObjectionSection 502(b)(6)Administrative Priority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionUnsecured ClaimsLease TerminationGuarantor Liability
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Application of Lakah

Petitioners Ramy and Michel Lakah moved for a preliminary injunction to halt arbitration proceedings against them in the case of UBS AG, et al. v. Lakah Funding Ltd, et al. They contended they were not parties to the arbitration agreements, with Michel Lakah being a non-signatory and Ramy Lakah having signed only on behalf of the Issuer and guarantors, not personally. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that the question of whether parties agreed to arbitrate is a judicial matter, not for arbitrators, unless explicitly provided otherwise. The court determined that forcing the Lakahs to litigate arbitrability before an unauthorized body would cause irreparable harm. Consequently, the motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining respondents from pursuing arbitration on the question of the Lakahs' obligation to arbitrate.

Preliminary InjunctionArbitration AgreementArbitrabilityJurisdictionPiercing the Corporate VeilFederal CourtDistrict CourtStay of ArbitrationIrreparable HarmMotion Granted
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Natural Foods, Inc. v. Burgess

United Natural Foods sued Helene Burgess for breach of personal guaranties on invoices for goods supplied to her Healthy Pleasures grocery stores. Burgess sought summary judgment, arguing the guaranties were invalid and discharged by a subsequent settlement agreement. The court acknowledged genuine factual disputes regarding the signature's authorization and Burgess's intent to be individually bound. However, it granted summary judgment for Burgess, finding that the settlement agreement, which consolidated debts, altered payment terms, and extended repayment over ten years, fundamentally changed the original invoice obligations. This material alteration, made without Burgess's consent, discharged her as a guarantor, irrespective of the continuing guaranty clause which was deemed not to cover these new, significantly different obligations.

Breach of ContractPersonal GuarantySummary JudgmentStatute of FraudsAgent AuthorityIndividual LiabilityContract AlterationGuarantor DischargeContinuing GuarantyNew York Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Lebron

This case involves an appeal concerning the permanent neglect of a child, Jason, placed in foster care in 1982 due to his parents' eviction and drug addiction. The Family Court found permanent neglect but dismissed the petitions, ruling the petitioner agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship. The appellate court affirmed the finding of permanent neglect, agreeing that the parents failed to plan for Jason's future or maintain regular contact. However, the court reversed the Family Court's finding on diligent efforts, concluding that the petitioner agency had, in fact, met its burden of proving diligent efforts despite the parents' chronic drug addiction and lack of cooperation. The court emphasized that an agency is not a guarantor of an uncooperative parent's success.

Permanent NeglectChild WelfareFoster CareParental RightsDiligent EffortsDrug AddictionRehabilitation ProgramsFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Development Bank of Israel Ltd. v. Bier

This case concerns the enforcement of an Israeli loan agreement in New York, where the variable interest rate, linked to the Israeli consumer price index, is challenged as usurious under New York law. Plaintiff, an Israeli bank, sought summary judgment against defendants Jules and Natanel Bier, guarantors of loans for their defaulted Israeli business. The court applied the doctrine of comity to uphold the Israeli court-approved sale of the business's assets, finding no extrinsic fraud and sufficient notice was provided. It determined that Israeli law, which permits such indexed interest rates, should govern the loan due to Israel's significant contacts with the transaction. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in part against both defendants on their guarantees, while dismissing parts of the complaint against Natanel Bier for three guarantees he did not sign.

Loan agreement enforcementUsury lawsConflict of lawsComity doctrineCommercial reasonablenessSummary judgmentGuarantor liabilityForeign judgment recognitionIsraeli lawVariable interest rates
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engineered Air v. LeCesse Bros. Contracting, Inc.

This is a concurring opinion regarding a class action lawsuit filed under Article 3-A of the Lien Law. The plaintiff, a material supplier to subcontractor G.A. Dyce, Inc., sued LeCesse Brothers Contracting, Inc., the contractor, to share funds owed to Dyce. The core issue concerned LeCesse’s affirmative defense, which sought to offset legal expenses incurred in defending the action against funds owed to Dyce, based on a subcontract provision. The concurring judge agrees with the majority's decision that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The opinion clarifies that the plaintiff is subrogated to Dyce's rights, and LeCesse should not be allowed to deduct legal fees. It also emphasizes the distinct trust obligations under the Lien Law, clarifying that a contractor is not a guarantor for a subcontractor's creditors.

Lien LawTrust FundsSubcontractorContractorClass ActionAffirmative DefenseLegal FeesMechanics' LiensSubrogationAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 12 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