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. ADJ6724203
Regular
Mar 29, 2013

Med-Legal LLC vs.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Med-Legal LLC's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the dismissal of its lien. Med-Legal claimed its representative was present at the lien conference and never received the Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Due to unclear hearing minutes and conflicting address information, the Board found the record regarding the conference unclear. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the lien's compensability.

Med-Legal LLCPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of Dismissallien conferenceNotice of Intention to DismissMinutes of Hearingrescindedreturned to trial levelillegible recordszip code discrepancy
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05725 [221 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2023

MJ Lilly Assoc., LLC v. Ovis Creative, LLC

The plaintiff, MJ Lilly Associates, LLC, initiated legal action against Ovis Creative, LLC, alleging violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA). The claims stemmed from the defendant's alleged failure to provide written contracts and to timely pay for freelance work performed by the plaintiff. Ovis Creative, LLC subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the FIFA causes of action, asserting that MJ Lilly Associates, LLC did not qualify as a 'freelance worker' under the Act. The Supreme Court denied this dismissal motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant's submitted evidence did not meet the criteria for 'documentary evidence' required for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and that the plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a)(7).

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFAIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceContract DisputePayment DisputeNew York City Administrative Code
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MLF3 Airitan LLC v. 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC

This case involves MLF3 Airitan LLC and MLF3 DC LLC (plaintiffs) suing 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC, 167th Street Mazal LLC, Eran Polack, Amir Hasid, Nir Amsel, Bank Leumi USA, and John Doe numbers 1 through 10 (defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty, trust fund diversion, and a declaratory judgment regarding mechanic's liens. Plaintiffs sought an accounting, damages, and priority for their mechanic's liens over Bank Leumi's liens, citing improper notice of lending and unfiled material modifications to loan agreements under the Lien Law. Defendants Bank Leumi and the Mazal entities cross-moved to dismiss based on various procedural grounds and failure to state a cause of action. The court granted Bank Leumi's motions to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action concerning the priority claims. However, it denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action, allowing the action to proceed concurrently with a lien foreclosure action. Additionally, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motions for an interim accounting and for consolidation of the actions.

Mechanic's LiensDeclaratory JudgmentTrust Fund DiversionBreach of Fiduciary DutyBuilding Loan AgreementLien Law Article 3-AMotion to DismissInterim AccountingConsolidation of ActionsPriority Disputes
References
35
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03319
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2023

Winston Salem RI LLC v. Ladder Capital Fin. LLC

This case concerns an appeal by Winston Salem RI LLC against Ladder Capital Finance LLC regarding the dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, reinstating claims related to the payment of forbearance fees and improper foreclosures, while affirming other aspects. The court clarified that a specific loan agreement section does not bar claims not challenging the reasonableness of Ladder's actions. Furthermore, it ruled that demand futility was adequately pleaded under Delaware law and that there is no heightened pleading requirement for breach of contract claims.

Breach of ContractDemand FutilityLoan AgreementsForbearance FeesImproper ForeclosuresAppellate ReviewDelaware LawPleading RequirementsContractual InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05448 [242 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2025

437 W. 36th St. LLC v. ZDJ W 37 LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's causes of action for declaratory judgment based on adverse possession and for permanent injunctive relief, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff, 437 West 36th Street LLC, failed to sufficiently plead hostile use regarding a retaining wall abutting two properties, as its mutually beneficial nature suggests permissive use. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits required for injunctive relief concerning interference with retaining walls or ongoing excavation work by the defendant, ZDJ W 37 LLC.

Adverse PossessionInjunctive ReliefRetaining WallProperty DisputeHostile PossessionIrreparable HarmPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Property Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,824 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