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

In re the Home Insurance

The Home Insurance Company filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. regarding disputed retrospective premiums under a Premium Agreement. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the first-filed rule, and that the underlying dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause. The Court denied Svedala's cross-motion, affirming its jurisdiction as the proper forum for compelling arbitration per the agreement. The Court granted Home's petition, determining that the broad arbitration clause in the Premium Agreement encompassed the dispute over premiums, including Svedala's defenses of bad faith. Svedala was subsequently ordered to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation InsuranceArbitration Clause ScopeFirst-Filed RuleSubject Matter JurisdictionBad Faith ClaimsContract InterpretationDispute Resolution
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

East End Property Co. 1 v. Kessel

The case involves a hybrid proceeding (CPLR article 78) and a taxpayer action (State Finance Law § 123-b) challenging two determinations by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) dated December 15, 2005. These determinations adopted a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings statement and authorized LIPA to enter into a power purchase agreement with Caithness Long Island, LLC, for a 350-megawatt power plant in Brookhaven. The petitioners-plaintiffs appealed from an order and judgment which denied their amended petition, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the sixth and seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while some civic associations had standing for certain claims, none had standing for the sixth cause of action (violations of Public Authorities Law § 1020-f) and the individual appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient injury. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, concluding that LIPA satisfied its SEQRA obligations, including taking a "hard look" at environmental impacts and adequately analyzing alternatives. The court further ruled that LIPA's segmentation of the Iroquois Pipeline Extension environmental review was not improper due to federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and that no supplemental EIS was required. Finally, the court found the taxpayer action allegations insufficient to establish an illegal use of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingTaxpayer ActionHybrid ProceedingPower Purchase AgreementLong Island Power AuthorityFederal PreemptionSegmentationAdministrative Law
References
55
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05824 [120 AD3d 601]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

Bankdirect Capital Fin. v. Insurance Co. of State of PA

This case involves an action for breach of contract brought by Bankdirect Capital Finance, as assignee of Standard Funding Corp., against the Insurance Company of State of Pa (ISOP). The dispute arose from the financing of insurance premiums for Emivest Aerospace Corporation, which later defaulted and filed for bankruptcy. Bankdirect moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. ISOP cross-moved to stay the action under 11 USC § 362 (a) due to Emivest's bankruptcy, which the Supreme Court granted. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Bankdirect but reversed the grant of a stay to ISOP. The appellate court found that Bankdirect's claim against ISOP, a non-debtor, would not have an immediate adverse economic consequence for Emivest's bankruptcy estate, therefore the automatic stay provisions did not apply to ISOP.

Breach of ContractInsurance PremiumsAssignmentBankruptcy StayAutomatic StaySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation PolicyNew York LawFederal Bankruptcy Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1987

Promovision Video Display Corp. v. Intech Leasing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal where Promovision Video Display Corporation sued Intech Leasing Corporation for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose from a series of integrated agreements, including a sales agreement with an arbitration clause between Promovision and Fujitsu Systems of America, Inc., and a financing agreement between Promovision and Intech. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Intech's motion to compel arbitration and granted Promovision's cross-motion to stay arbitration. The appellate court reversed this order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and that the arbitration clause, incorporated by reference into the financing agreement, governed the claims between Promovision and Intech. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration, and the action was stayed.

ArbitrationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActIntegrated ContractsAssignmentFinancing AgreementSales AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ActionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Whitehaven S.F., LLC v. Spangler

This case involves a dispute over the validity and enforceability of an arbitration clause within a litigation financing agreement. Petitioner Whitehaven S.F., LLC sought to compel Respondent Steven Spangler to arbitrate after Spangler initiated an Indiana state court action to void their financing agreement, citing unconscionability. The District Court granted Whitehaven's motion, finding the arbitration clause valid under New York law and rejecting Spangler's arguments that it was unconscionable or violated a prior Assurance of Discontinuance with the New York Attorney General. The court also ordered a stay of the Indiana Proceeding concerning claims between Whitehaven and Spangler, but excluded third-party Harvey Thatcher from arbitration as he was not a signatory to the agreement. The decision underscores the strong federal policy favoring arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementLitigation FinancingContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActAssurance of DiscontinuanceNew York LawChoice of LawDeclaratory JudgmentStay of Proceedings
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Soika

This case concerns Household Finance Corporation's petition to review a Referee in Bankruptcy's order regarding the nondischargeability of a prebankruptcy debt. The bankrupt provided false financial statements to Household Finance Corp. and Postal Finance Co., omitting significant existing indebtedness. The Referee found these statements to be materially false, made with intent to deceive, and relied upon by the creditors, resulting in the bankrupt receiving additional funds. The Referee determined the nondischargeable liability for Household Finance Corp. to be $75.00, which was challenged by Household Finance, seeking $1,400.00. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, concluding that the 1960 amendment to the Bankruptcy Act § 17(a)(2) does not impose a special penalty beyond the New York 'actual pecuniary loss' rule for fraud, thus construing exceptions to discharge strictly in favor of the bankrupt.

BankruptcyNondischargeable DebtFalse Financial StatementFraudDamagesBankruptcy ActCreditor RightsDebtor ProtectionPecuniary LossAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2003

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, concerning an action to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The plaintiff, an insurance fund, sought premiums from the defendant for policy periods between November 1993 and December 1996. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that claims for estimated premiums for the periods from November 1993 to November 1996 were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, CPLR 213 (2). The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, agreeing that the claims for unpaid estimated premiums for those specific periods were time-barred. However, the court found that claims for final audit premiums issued after July 30, 1996, were not time-barred. Additionally, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, dismissing the defendant's counterclaim, on the grounds that such counterclaims against the State Insurance Fund are only cognizable in the Court of Claims.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCounterclaimInstallment PaymentsEstimated PremiumsAudit AdjustmentAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,541 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