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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. 04 Cv. 8144(SWK)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2007

In Re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Securities Litigation

Plaintiff M.F. Henry filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its directors, citing false statements and omissions in proxy statements. The defendants moved for dismissal, raising arguments of res judicata and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court rejected the res judicata defense, noting issues with privity and the case's unique procedural history. However, the court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that the defendants had no duty to disclose uncharged mismanagement, the potential incidental benefit of an options exchange to unnamed wrongdoers, or an auditor's alleged prior audit failures, as these omissions did not render any explicit statements misleading. The Third Amended Complaint was consequently dismissed with prejudice.

Securities LitigationProxy SolicitationRule 14a-9 ViolationsMaterialityDuty to DiscloseCorporate MismanagementShareholder Derivative ActionRes Judicata DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Securities Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Systems, Inc.

Cytyc Corporation initiated this action against Neuromedical Systems, Inc. (NSI) and two of its officers, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law, alleging unlawful disparagement of its ThinPrep system. NSI filed a counterclaim, asserting claims under the Lanham Act, for defamation, and for statutory and common law unfair competition under New York State law. The core of NSI's counterclaim was that Cytyc made numerous false or misleading statements regarding its ThinPrep system and NSI's Papnet system. The court granted Cytyc's motion to dismiss NSI's defamation claim, finding the statements either true or non-actionable opinion, and not concerning NSI. However, the court denied dismissal for NSI's Lanham Act, General Business Law, and common law unfair competition claims, determining that a small number of the challenged statements by Cytyc could provide a basis for relief.

Lanham ActUnfair CompetitionFalse AdvertisingDefamationProduct DisparagementMedical Device MarketingFDA ApprovalCivil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)CounterclaimThinPrep System
References
24
Case No. 07 Civ. 11479
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Focus Media Holding Ltd. Litigation

This consolidated putative class action involved Lead Plaintiff Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund suing Focus Media Holding Limited, its officers/directors, and underwriters for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiff claimed that Focus Media made misstatements and omissions regarding its declining gross margins in a September 2007 press release, conference call, and a November 2007 Registration Statement. Specifically, allegations included misleading earnings guidance, failure to disclose third-quarter gross margin information, and undisclosed traditional billboard acquisitions. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, finding that the plaintiff failed to state actionable claims. The decision concluded that Focus Media's disclosures complied with SEC regulations, its forward-looking statements were protected by cautionary language and the PSLRA safe harbor, and the observed decline in gross margin did not constitute an 'extreme departure' requiring accelerated disclosure.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933Private Securities Litigation Reform ActForward-Looking StatementsGross MarginFinancial DisclosureMaterial Omission
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,015 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