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
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
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

In re the Arbitration between Camhi & Undergarment & Negligee Workers Union, Local 62

The case involves a petitioner's motion to stay arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The court reversed a previous order denying the stay and granted the motion. The central issue is whether the arbitration clause extends to the petitioner's individual business operations established after leaving a partnership, rather than to obligations predating the partnership's dissolution. The majority ruled that disputes related to the petitioner's separate business are not subject to the arbitration agreement because the individual business is not represented by the trade association. A dissenting opinion argued that the broad arbitration clause should empower arbitrators to determine the scope, particularly if the union alleges deliberate circumvention of the agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStay of ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionIndividual LiabilityTrade AssociationJudicial ReviewArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Campbell

Plaintiff and ten coworkers formed an oral agreement to share lottery winnings from tickets purchased in rotation. After a coworker purchased a winning ticket worth $4.5 million, a trust was established to distribute the proceeds, and all parties, including the plaintiff, executed a trust agreement. Subsequently, during plaintiff's divorce proceedings, the defendant counterclaimed, asserting that the lottery proceeds constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the co-worker was not legally obligated to share, deeming the plaintiff's share a gift and thus separate property. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the oral agreement to share lottery proceeds valid and enforceable, not a gift. It held that property acquired during marriage is presumptively marital property, and the plaintiff's share from the pooling arrangement constituted marital property. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings concerning the disposition of the marital property.

Lottery WinningsMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionDivorce LawOral ContractsStatute of FraudsAppellate ReviewRemandTrust AgreementsProperty Division
References
20
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. E2016-01850-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2017

Mary Wagoner-Angelin v. Randall Jon Angelin

This appeal addresses post-divorce disputes concerning a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) and a parenting plan. Mother sought to modify the parenting plan and alleged civil contempt against Father for various failures. The Trial Court found Father in contempt for failing to resolve property issues and pay certain expenses. The appellate court affirmed that Father is bound by the MDA's alimony and educational expense provisions. However, it vacated and remanded the awards for extracurricular and medical expenses, and related attorney's fees, for a determination of mutual agreement, and also remanded for findings on contempt regarding Mother's divorce attorney's fees.

DivorceMarital Dissolution AgreementParenting PlanChild Support ModificationAlimonyCivil ContemptPost-DivorceEducational ExpensesProperty RepairMedical Expenses
References
25
Case No. 04-14-00785-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Mary Ann Castro v. Manuel Castro

Maryann Castro, the appellant, files a statement in the Fourth Court of Appeals to reopen a final divorce agreement with Manuel Castro, the appellee. She alleges fraud, misrepresentation of marital home value, hidden marital assets, and undisclosed bankruptcy by Manuel Castro, leading to substantial financial hardship. Disabled and unemployed, she asserts inability to pay marital debts, including mortgage and taxes, and requests alimony from Manuel Castro, who she claims is gainfully employed and dishonest. She highlights an active workers' compensation claim and fears homelessness if the agreement is not reopened.

Divorce AppealMarital FraudAsset ConcealmentProperty OvervaluationSpousal AlimonyFinancial HardshipDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation ClaimMortgage DefaultTax Delinquency
References
0
Case No. M2006-02463-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2008

Linda Mae (Edwards) Maloy v. Paul David Maloy

This is a divorce case where the husband appealed the trial court's refusal to enforce an alleged property division agreement and the inclusion of his social security disability benefits in the marital estate. Both parties also appealed the trial court's failure to divide marital debt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the social security benefits and the unenforceability of the agreement, citing inequity and duress. However, the court reversed the trial court's refusal to divide the marital debt, remanding the case for an equitable division of debt and a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

Divorce LawMarital Property DivisionEquitable DistributionSocial Security DisabilityPostnuptial AgreementsMarital Debt AllocationAttorney's FeesCoercion DefenseAppellate Civil ProcedureTrial Court Discretion
References
24
Case No. E2013-01985-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Carolyn M. Heaton v. Jason Barrett Heaton

This appeal stems from a divorce proceeding in Hamilton County, focusing on the enforcement of a prenuptial agreement regarding property division and child support. The trial court's decision, which found the prenuptial agreement enforceable but did not treat the marital residence as "Co-Owned Property" and miscalculated the wife's income for child support, was challenged. The appellate court determined that the marital residence should have been divided equally as per the prenuptial agreement and that the wife's income for child support was improperly assessed, necessitating consideration of all income sources and potential imputation of income. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's rulings on property division, child support, and attorney's fees, remanding the case for recalculation and equal distribution according to the prenuptial terms, while affirming other aspects of the judgment.

DivorcePrenuptial AgreementProperty DivisionMarital ResidenceCo-Owned PropertyChild SupportIncome ImputationRetroactive Child SupportAttorney's FeesAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,651 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