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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griffith v. STEINER WILLIAMSBURG, LLC

Plaintiffs Anastasia Griffith and Alan Weissman sued Steiner Williamsburg, LLC, seeking to revoke their condominium purchase agreements and recover deposits, alleging Steiner violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA). Steiner countered that plaintiffs breached the agreements and sought to retain deposits. The central issue was whether ILSA's 100-lot exemption applied, depending on if it was determined at the time of purchase or later. The court ruled that the exemption's applicability is determined when the purchaser signs the agreement. As Steiner's condominium had 123 non-exempt units at the time of purchase and no property report was provided, the court found Steiner in violation of ILSA. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted, and Steiner's motion was denied.

Interstate Land SalesFull Disclosure ActCondominium PurchaseDeveloper ObligationsProperty ReportContract RevocationStatutory InterpretationILSA ExemptionSummary JudgmentConsumer Protection
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration & Production LLC

This case involves a dispute arising from a Stock Purchase Agreement between Petitioners Ecopetrol S.A. and Korea National Oil Corporation (Purchasers) and Respondent Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC (Offshore). The agreement required Offshore to indemnify Purchasers against tax liabilities. After an arbitral panel issued an Interim Award for $75 million in tax reimbursement and a Supplemental Interim Award preventing Offshore from using escrowed funds to satisfy it, Purchasers sought to confirm these awards in court under the UN Convention and Federal Arbitration Act. Offshore opposed confirmation and petitioned to vacate the Supplemental Interim Award. The District Court granted the Purchasers' petition to confirm both arbitral awards and denied Offshore's cross-petition to vacate, finding the awards final and within the arbitral panel's jurisdiction.

Arbitration LawInternational ArbitrationStock Purchase AgreementIndemnity ClauseTax DisputesEscrow AgreementFederal Arbitration ActConvention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral AwardsInterim Arbitral AwardSupplemental Arbitral Award
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. Astrocosmos Metallurgical, Inc.

Plaintiff MPM Silicones, LLC (assignee of GE) sued Defendant AstroCosmos Metallurgical Inc. for various claims concerning a defective tantalum-lined weak acid reactor, including breach of a 1999 Purchase Agreement and a 2005 Replacement Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, strict products liability, and breaches of implied and express warranties. AstroCosmos moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted dismissal for most claims due to statute of limitations, including the breach of the Purchase Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and breaches of implied and express warranties. However, the court denied dismissal for the breach of the Replacement Agreement claim and partially denied dismissal for the strict products liability claim regarding property damage after May 25, 2004, allowing these claims to proceed.

Breach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationProfessional NegligenceEngineering MalpracticeStrict Products LiabilityImplied WarrantiesExpress WarrantiesStatute of LimitationsEquitable Estoppel
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Campbell

Plaintiff and ten coworkers formed an oral agreement to share lottery winnings from tickets purchased in rotation. After a coworker purchased a winning ticket worth $4.5 million, a trust was established to distribute the proceeds, and all parties, including the plaintiff, executed a trust agreement. Subsequently, during plaintiff's divorce proceedings, the defendant counterclaimed, asserting that the lottery proceeds constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the co-worker was not legally obligated to share, deeming the plaintiff's share a gift and thus separate property. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the oral agreement to share lottery proceeds valid and enforceable, not a gift. It held that property acquired during marriage is presumptively marital property, and the plaintiff's share from the pooling arrangement constituted marital property. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings concerning the disposition of the marital property.

Lottery WinningsMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionDivorce LawOral ContractsStatute of FraudsAppellate ReviewRemandTrust AgreementsProperty Division
References
20
Case No. 653709/2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v. SDI, Inc.

This case involves a dispute arising from an April 28, 2011 transaction where Plaintiffs (Sellers) sold shares in Project Eagle to Defendant SDI, Inc. (Purchaser). SDI claims Sellers breached representations and warranties in the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), while Sellers contend SDI breached the Escrow Agreement by submitting an invalid claim notice and retaining escrowed funds. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs also sought dismissal on spoliation grounds. The court partially granted and partially denied Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, dismissing SDI's claims regarding Taxes and temporary workers, but denying dismissal for Financial Statements and Suppliers/Customers. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the Sellers' Representative's claim for breach of the Escrow Agreement. Finally, Plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions was denied due to a lack of demonstrated control over non-party entities.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentEscrow AgreementSpoliation of EvidenceStock Purchase AgreementCorporate AcquisitionIndemnification ClaimDue DiligenceFinancial StatementsSuppliers and Customers
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2005

G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v. Lazzari

This case involves an action by G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. (Alan) against Derval Lazzari (Lazzari) to enforce a consulting agreement. Lazzari asserts Alan was a "faithless agent" due to alleged insurance fraud against corporations in which Lazzari purchased stock, arguing this forfeits Alan's right to compensation under the consulting agreement. Alan counter-argues that the consulting agreement was part of the stock purchase price, making misconduct irrelevant, and that Lazzari was aware of the alleged fraud. The court examines the "faithless agent" rule, determining that forfeiture applies only to compensation for services rendered to the disloyal principal and is subject to apportionment if performance on other duties is untainted. The court found triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment for Lazzari on his "faithless agent" defense. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order granting Lazzari's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, and the matter was remanded, while an earlier order granting Lazzari leave to amend his answer was affirmed.

Faithless Agent RuleAgency LawConsulting AgreementInsurance FraudSummary Judgment MotionBreach of LoyaltyContract EnforcementCorporate LawAppellate ReviewForfeiture of Compensation
References
45
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
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 2,474 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