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

Chassman v. People Resources

The plaintiff sought the return of $1,850 paid to People Resources, a self-described 'organization for singles,' alleging the contract was void under General Business Law § 394-c, procured by fraud, and for lack of services. Defendant argued the law was inapplicable and that arbitration was mandated by the contract. The court determined that People Resources operates as a 'social referral service' under the broad interpretation of General Business Law § 394-c, despite its claim of merely providing a 'forum.' The contract was found to violate several statutory provisions, including charging excessive fees and lacking mandatory cancellation options, rendering it void and unenforceable due to its public policy implications. Consequently, the arbitration clause within the void contract was also deemed unenforceable, leading the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the defendant's.

Social Referral ServiceContract VoidabilitySummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseConsumer Protection LawGeneral Business LawUnenforceable ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationDating ServicesLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05472 [187 AD3d 452]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Richards v. Security Resources

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendant Security Resources' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff Alroy Richards' cross-motions. The court found that Security Resources timely moved to dismiss and that the plaintiff's denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation were dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. Negligence claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, and the individual defendant, Joseph Katanga, was found not to have been properly served, rendering discovery motions moot.

Dismissal of complaintMotion to dismissService of processAffidavit of serviceWrongful dischargeAt-will employmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressDefamationQualified privilegeNegligence claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03820 [195 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2021

21st Century Pharmacy v. American Intl. Group

21st Century Pharmacy appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed its declaratory judgment action against American International Group (AIG) and the New York Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The pharmacy sought a declaration that it could pursue payment for prescription bills in a plenary court proceeding, rather than solely through the WCB, and also sought a monetary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, asserting the WCB had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that while the WCB holds primary jurisdiction over Workers' Compensation Law applicability, it does not possess exclusive jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits of AIG's motion to dismiss.

Declaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionPrescription BillsAppellate ProcedureRemittalPharmacy RightsCourt Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03892 [185 AD3d 780]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2020

Croshier v. New Horizons Resources, Inc.

The plaintiff, Shelly Croshier, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after allegedly falling on the driveway of a group home owned and operated by the defendant, New Horizons Resources, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, lacked constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, or that the condition was trivial. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeTrivial DefectPersonal InjuryFall AccidentDriveway SafetyAppellate ReviewDuty of Care
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

Pain Resource Center v. Travelers Insurance

This case addresses a dispute regarding the payment of first-party no-fault benefits to a health provider, Pain Resource Center, as the assignee of John Hiotis, who was injured in an auto accident. The defendant, Travelers Ins. Co., challenged the validity of the assignment and the necessity of the medical services provided. The court affirmed the validity of the assignment under New York's Insurance Law and related regulations. However, based on conflicting expert testimonies, the court limited the compensable medical services to six hours and awarded the plaintiff $566.10, along with statutory interest and attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Ndola Pharmacy Corp.

Plaintiff Siew Lian Rivera brought an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, Human Rights Law, Administrative Code, and common law claims against Ndola Pharmacy Corp. and several individuals. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the FLSA and Labor Law claims and to dismiss state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied partial summary judgment, finding Rivera's testimony sufficient for overtime claims despite credibility questions. Supplemental jurisdiction was retained for the sexual harassment claim against N. Patel due to its connection to wage allegations, but other state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lacking a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim. Additionally, certain motions related to amending the answer regarding the plaintiff's standing due to bankruptcy were granted in part and denied in part.

FLSAOvertime CompensationWage ClaimsSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy EstateCredibility of WitnessEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamarr-Arruz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

This case involves claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation brought by Zaire Lamarr-Arruz and Mominna Ansoralli against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Plaintiffs allege racial profiling of customers and a barrage of racial slurs by supervisors and managers, violating 42 U.S.C. §1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Lamarr-Arruz also filed a retaliation claim, alleging delayed return from medical leave and termination due to his complaints. CVS sought summary judgment, denying the allegations and arguing the lack of supervisory responsibility for some alleged harassers and the availability of their anti-harassment policy. The court denied CVS's motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of a hostile work environment for Ansoralli, the imputation of hostile conduct to CVS, and Lamarr-Arruz's retaliation claim, including the pretextual nature of his termination reasons.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawCivil Rights Act of 1991New York Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilitySupervisory Liability
References
60
Case No. 95 Civ. 5106(AGS)(SEG)
Regular Panel Decision

Envirosource, Inc. v. Horsehead Resource Development Co.

The United States Magistrate Judge Grubin issued an opinion concerning Envirosource, Inc.'s application for sanctions against Horsehead Resource Development Co. due to the latter's persistent failure to complete document production. The defendant's continuous non-compliance with discovery orders resulted in significant delays and increased expenses for the plaintiff. The court firmly rejected all of the defendant's arguments against the imposition of sanctions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of awarding attorney's fees under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After a thorough review of the plaintiff's billing documentation, and implementing reductions for insufficient attorney experience details and excessive claimed hours, the court ultimately awarded Envirosource, Inc. $84,950.70 in attorney's fees.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAttorney FeesDocument ProductionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCourt OrdersNon-complianceBad FaithMagistrate JudgeFee Calculation
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 422 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