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
Feb 08, 1984

Klein v. Jamor Purveyors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the enforceability of an alleged oral modification to a written corporate shareholders' agreement. The original agreement, between Jack Klein (decedent), Michael Jacobson, and Jamor Purveyors, Inc., stipulated a $55,000 buy-out price for a deceased shareholder's stock. The plaintiff, as executrix of Klein's estate, claimed an oral agreement increased this buy-out price to $155,000. Special Term dismissed the claims, asserting the oral modification was barred by the Statute of Frauds and a clause in the original agreement requiring written modifications. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, ruling that the alleged oral agreement fell within the Statute of Frauds and that the plaintiff's arguments regarding memoranda, partial performance, and equitable estoppel were insufficient to satisfy the statute or overcome its provisions. The court also upheld the interpretation that the agreement's modification clause precluded oral changes.

oral agreementStatute of Fraudsshareholders' agreementcorporate buy-outcontract modificationpart performanceequitable estoppelAppellate DivisionCPLRGeneral Obligations Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phoenix Corp. v. U.W. Marx, Inc.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor, initiated an action to recover $209,650 in overtime expenses from U.W. Marx, Inc. and its bonding companies, based on an alleged oral modification to a written subcontract. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding an enforceable oral agreement despite a clause prohibiting oral modifications. On appeal, the Appellate Division determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate partial performance or equitable estoppel unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement for overtime payment, as required by General Obligations Law § 15-301. Consequently, the judgment was modified by reducing the award by $191,870, effectively denying the majority of the overtime claim, while affirming the denial of the defendants' counterclaims.

Oral ModificationSubcontract DisputeConstruction LawOvertime ExpensesGeneral Obligations LawPartial PerformanceEquitable EstoppelContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1998

Robert Half International, Inc. v. Re-Track USA Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied its motion for summary judgment in an action to recover damages for breach of contract and for an account stated. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action based on an account stated. The court found that the "Conditions of Assignment" on time sheets permitted oral modification of the hourly billing rate. However, the defendant's opposing affidavit lacked sufficient evidentiary details regarding the alleged oral modification, failing to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the account stated cause of action, and the matter was remitted for entry of judgment.

Breach of ContractAccount StatedSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewOral ModificationBilling DisputesContract LawCivil ProcedureNew York LawEvidentiary Requirements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers District Council of Western New York & Vicinity Welfare & Pension Funds v. Butler Fence Co.

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs Iron Workers District Council of Western New York and Vicinity Welfare and Pension Funds sued defendant Butler Fence Co., Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The core dispute revolves around whether an oral modification limited the scope of a 1986 collective bargaining agreement to a specific project, impacting Butler's obligation to make fringe benefit contributions. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, an order compelling document production, and to dismiss Butler's counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement by the union. The court denied summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues concerning the oral modification. It also denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, ruling it was governed by LMRA and not preempted by ERISA. The discovery motion was denied without prejudice, to be renewed before the magistrate judge.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementOral ModificationFringe BenefitsSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementContractual ObligationBenefit Plan AuditMultiemployer Plan
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DBL Liquidating Trust v. Clarkson Construction Co. (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.)

DBL Liquidating Trust (Drexel) appealed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of summary judgment in a claim filed by Clarkson Construction Company (Clarkson). The core issue was whether Clarkson ratified approximately 3,000 unauthorized trading transactions by failing to object in writing, despite explicit contractual requirements. Clarkson argued that oral assurances from their broker, Thomas Carpenter, stating 'nothing much was going on,' constituted an oral modification or grounds for equitable estoppel. However, the court found no legal basis for these arguments, emphasizing that the Account Agreement mandated written modifications and timely written objections. The court also highlighted that Clarkson's comptroller, authorized to review account statements, never raised any objections to the trades. Consequently, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, ruling that Clarkson failed to present a triable issue of fact and dismissing Clarkson's claim.

Securities TradingBrokerage ContractSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelOral ModificationRatificationCommodity Customer Account AgreementUnauthorized TradingWritten ObjectionCustomer-Broker Relations
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 703 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