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

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merton Co. v. PepsiCo Inc.

The Merton Company, Ltd. sued PepsiCo Inc. for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Merton alleged that PepsiCo's representatives, through vague statements, induced them to produce toy components for a 'Pepsi Gang' promotional project, for which Merton was never paid. The court, applying British contract law based on New York conflict of law principles, found no enforceable contract due to a lack of certainty and essential terms. Furthermore, it determined that no 'special relationship' existed between Merton and PepsiCo to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of PepsiCo.

Contract DisputeNegligent MisrepresentationInternational BusinessCorporate LiabilityConflict of LawsBritish LawHong Kong LawDue DiligenceAgencyPromotional Products
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2002

Claim of Outerie v. Derle Farms, Inc.

Claimant sustained a back injury in July 1995 and received workers' compensation benefits until January 1997. Payments ceased when it was discovered he had been working in his spouse's delicatessen, a fact he failed to disclose to his carrier or treating physicians. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by making material misrepresentations of fact to obtain benefits. Consequently, his benefits were rescinded from November 1996, and he was disqualified from receiving any further benefits after January 13, 1997. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and upholding the Board's authority as the final arbiter of witness credibility to infer the claimant was no longer disabled.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMisrepresentation of FactsBenefit DisqualificationPartial DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewUndisclosed EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionFraudulent Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2015

Rana v. Islam

Mashud Parves Rana sued his former employers, Monirul Islam and Fahima Tahsina Prova, alleging violations of federal and state labor laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law, alongside various New York state common law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of insufficient pleading for fraudulent misrepresentation, consular immunity, and insufficient service of process. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding the fraudulent misrepresentation claim sufficiently pled and the defendants not immune from suit. Although there was an issue of fact regarding service, the Court found that proper service could still be obtained and ordered service on the defendants' attorneys.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationConsular ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionService of ProcessTrafficking Victims ProtectionFair Labor StandardsNew York State Labor LawDomestic Worker ExploitationDiplomatic PrivilegesMotion to Dismiss
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Matter of Poupore v. Clinton County Highway Department

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in 2002 and was classified as permanently partially disabled in 2005. In 2012, the employer alleged claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting video surveillance showing activities inconsistent with his reported limitations to an independent medical examiner (IME), Marco Berard. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation, imposing penalties. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the ruling, agreeing to willful misrepresentations during the IME and imposing a penalty of wage replacement benefits paid from April 27, 2012, to September 14, 2012, while permanently disqualifying him from future benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of willful misrepresentations concerning material facts and that the penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSurveillance EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltyAppellate ReviewMaterial Fact
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,185 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