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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06024 [153 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2017

In Re Dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc.

The case involves the judicial dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc., a closely-held corporation. Petitioners, Vladimir Chomiak, Leon Chomiak, and Leonora Chomiak, sought dissolution alleging oppressive conduct and looting of corporate assets by respondents, Tatiana Chomiak Kasian, Tamara L. Chomiak, and the estate of Leo Chomiak. Supreme Court granted the dissolution, finding that respondents engaged in actions such as awarding themselves unjustified bonuses, issuing undervalued stock to dilute petitioners' ownership, and attempting to force petitioners to sell their shares. The court also found that respondents looted corporate assets through unsubstantiated loans. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vladimir Chomiak had standing, the proceeding was not time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations for equitable breach of fiduciary duty claims, and there was ample evidence to support findings of oppressive actions and looting of corporate assets.

corporate dissolutionminority shareholder oppressionbreach of fiduciary dutycorporate lootingdilution of sharesstatute of limitationsstandingclosely-held corporationappellate reviewfiduciary relationship
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

O'Reilly-Morshead v. O'Reilly-Morshead

This case addresses the equitable distribution of assets acquired during a civil union, entered into in Vermont, by a couple who later married in Canada and resided in New York. The plaintiff initiated a divorce action, and the defendant counterclaimed for the dissolution of the civil union and distribution of assets acquired during that period. The court determined it had jurisdiction to dissolve the civil union but, applying New York Domestic Relations Law, held that marital property is strictly defined from the date of marriage. Consequently, the court denied equitable distribution of any assets acquired during the civil union prior to the marriage, granting summary judgment for the defendant on the dissolution of the civil union but reserving the distribution of marital property and the right to divorce for trial.

Civil UnionEquitable DistributionDomestic Relations LawMarital PropertyNew York LawVermont LawConflict of LawsSame-Sex MarriageSummary JudgmentDivorce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnone v. Arnone

The parties married in 1980 and divorced after a prolonged action initiated in 1997. The Supreme Court's initial judgment distributed marital property, including the marital residence to the defendant, and allowed the plaintiff to retain his state pension. Defendant appealed the equitable distribution, challenging the classification of certain bank accounts as separate property and the denial of a share in the plaintiff's state pension. The appellate court upheld the separate property designations but found that the defendant was entitled to a 50% share of the plaintiff's state pension, modifying the judgment accordingly. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding maintenance and counsel fees, denying further awards to the defendant.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorce ProceedingsSpousal Pension RightsAppellate ReviewSeparate PropertyMaintenance AwardsCounsel FeesDisability BenefitsProperty Valuation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Francis

This case concerns a bench trial to determine if three non-marital children (J, D, and S) are entitled to inherit from the decedent under EPTL 4-1.2 (a) (2) (C). The children's mother, the petitioner, presented extensive evidence of the decedent's relationship with her and the children, including cohabitation, financial support, and introductions to his family. The respondent, the decedent's spouse, contested this claim, asserting the decedent denied fathering other children and consistently resided with her. The court, finding the petitioner's evidence clear and convincing, concluded that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity of the children, citing photographic evidence, rental agreements, tax returns, and testimony from both families. Consequently, the court ruled that J, D, and S are entitled to inherit from the decedent as his non-marital children.

Inheritance LawNon-marital ChildrenPaternityEPTL 4-1.2Clear and Convincing EvidenceOpen and Notorious AcknowledgmentEstate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFamily LawDistributees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

Kahn v. Seely

Former law partners Robert I. Kahn and Claxton B. Seely appealed the trial court's judgment concerning the dissolution and termination of their law partnership. The central issue was whether a partner is entitled to compensation for post-dissolution services in winding up partnership affairs under the 1914 Texas Uniform Partnership Act. The court held that the 1914 Act does not permit such compensation, reversing the trial court's decision on this point. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to support Kahn's claim for lost profit damages due to Seely's alleged breach of fiduciary duty, rendering judgment against Kahn on this claim. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, including the 60/40 division of firm profits.

Partnership DissolutionLaw Firm PartnershipWinding Up AffairsPost-Dissolution CompensationTexas Uniform Partnership ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyLost Profits DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewContract Construction
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Dissolution of Therm, Inc.

Petitioners, two of the three daughters of the deceased Robert R. Sprole, initiated a proceeding against their brother, Robert Sprole II, and nephew, Robert Sprole III. The dispute centers on the distribution of Therm, Inc. stock from a trust established by the decedent, alleging that estate taxes were deliberately delayed to prevent stock distribution and accusing respondents of various manipulations and self-dealing that deprived petitioners of their rightful assets. Respondents moved to dismiss, which the Supreme Court partially granted, limiting the remaining causes of action (breach of fiduciary duty and common-law dissolution) to acts occurring within six years of the proceeding's commencement. Petitioners appealed this limitation, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the ongoing fiduciary relationship and lack of open repudiation. The Appellate Division found the lower court erred, holding that the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty is tolled until an open repudiation or termination of the fiduciary relationship, neither of which occurred here according to the allegations. Thus, petitioners were not barred from presenting proof of acts preceding the six-year period.

Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsTrust AdministrationEstate LitigationCorporate GovernanceBreach of Fiduciary DutySelf-Dealing AllegationsAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEquitable Tolling
References
9
Case No. 02A01-9709-CV-00231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Sarah Wilkerson v. Robert Wilkerson

This is a divorce case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the distribution of marital property. The trial court awarded the husband $25,000, representing 38.5% of the marital home's value, and the remainder of the marital property to the wife as alimony in solido, having considered the husband's fault. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in considering fault in the division of marital property and in failing to include all marital assets, such as both parties' automobiles and the husband's pension, in the marital estate. The court also determined that the presumption of equal marital property distribution was not overcome. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions for an equal, 50/50, division of marital property before addressing the issue of alimony.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewFault in DivorceEquitable DistributionPension ValuationAutomobile ClassificationSpousal SupportTennessee Family Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mylette v. Mylette

The plaintiff moved to have the defendant's disability pension, from the New York City Police Pension Fund, classified as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (b). The defendant, a former New York City police officer, received the disability pension after a line-of-duty knee injury, terminating his employment after 12 years, short of the 15 years required for vesting. The court reviewed legal precedents from various states and New York, which generally treat disability pensions as separate property, particularly when compensating for personal injuries rather than deferred compensation. The court found that the defendant's pension was purely compensation for his injury, distinguishing it from retirement benefits, and that he had no option to choose a regular retirement package. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the disability pension is the defendant's separate property.

Domestic Relations LawDisability PensionMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionSeparate PropertyPolice Pension FundPersonal Injury CompensationNonvested BenefitsFamily LawProperty Classification
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 277 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