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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03576 [239 AD3d 752]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2025

Matter of Royal v. Royal

The case "Matter of Royal v Royal" involves an appeal by Albert Royal (father) against Mireille M. Royal (mother) regarding his retroactive child and spousal support obligations. The parties, married in 2014 with two children, separated in June 2018. In July 2018, the mother sought support. Subsequently, the father suffered significant injuries from a work accident and two motor vehicle accidents in late 2018 and 2019, rendering him unable to continue as a construction worker and leading him to receive public assistance after exhausting unemployment benefits. The Support Magistrate and Family Court used the father's 2018 income tax return to determine his support obligations for the period from July 2018 through December 2019, amounting to $48,200.22. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the 2018 income tax return did not accurately reflect the father's actual income during the period from November 2018 through December 2019 due to his injuries and inability to work. The matter was remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a recalculation of the father's income and, if appropriate, his retroactive support obligations for the specified period.

Family LawChild SupportSpousal SupportImputed IncomeRetroactive SupportIncome RecalculationParental Financial ObligationPersonal InjuryUnemployment BenefitsPublic Assistance
References
3
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2004

Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union), The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (Columbia), and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. (Bovis) against Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Royal). The core issue is whether Royal's disclaimer of liability under Insurance Law § 3420 (d) was timely. The court found that Royal's disclaimer to Bovis and Columbia was untimely as a matter of law because its internal staffing issues were not a reasonable excuse for the delay. However, the court also ruled that § 3420 (d) does not apply to disclaimers between co-insurers, thus Royal's disclaimer was timely as to National Union. Furthermore, the court determined that Royal's "New Residential Work or Products Exclusion" did not apply to Millennium's work on a mixed-use building, thus obligating Royal to defend and indemnify Bovis and Columbia, and Royal was ordered to reimburse National Union for defense costs incurred from March 3, 2003.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of LiabilityDenial of CoverageInsurance Law § 3420 (d)Timeliness of DisclaimerInternal Staffing IssuesCo-Insurer LiabilityAdditional InsuredPolicy ExclusionNew Residential Work Exclusion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (HRH) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) seeking to establish Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (Royal) obligation to defend HRH in an underlying action and reimburse legal fees. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled that Royal was obligated to defend HRH and reimburse legal fees from December 30, 1999. Upon appeal, this order was modified to change the reimbursement start date to November 22, 2000, and otherwise affirmed. The court rejected Royal's argument that a specific endorsement overrode a general blanket additional insured endorsement, which Royal claimed would make them coprimary insurers with National. The duty to defend was clarified to be triggered upon the commencement of the underlying action against HRH.

Insurance disputeGeneral contractor liabilityAdditional insured endorsementDuty to defendInsurance reimbursementSummary judgmentPolicy interpretationConstruction site accidentPrimary insuranceOther insurance clause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc.

This case involves employees of Malabar Palace restaurant suing Royal Arcadia Palace and its owners for various labor law violations, fraud, and breach of contract after Malabar closed and Royal Arcadia opened in the same location. Plaintiffs allege Royal Arcadia is a successor entity created to avoid Malabar's debts, and that defendants were partners in Malabar and responsible for unpaid wages, overtime, and loans. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of FLSA coverage, employer status, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, and agency. The court denied summary judgment for most claims and most plaintiffs, except for dismissing Plaintiff Vimla, dismissing breach of contract for back-wages, and granting breach of contract for loans for all plaintiffs except Manjit.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertime PayMinimum WageSuccessor LiabilityFraudBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPartnership Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1989

In re the Claim of Barbato

This case involves an appeal by Royal Care from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which determined a claimant to be an employee of Royal Care and thus entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, consequently assessing Royal Care for additional contributions. Royal Care, a provider of health care personnel, appealed the finding that an employment relationship existed, arguing the claimant was an independent contractor. The Board's determination was supported by evidence showing Royal Care's active direction and control over client contact, establishment of claimant's pay rate, and handling of billing and collections from clients. The court found these factors to constitute substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed, affirming the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Accordingly, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardHealth Care PersonnelLicensed Practical NurseUnemployment ContributionsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greeley v. Kim Royal Dutch Airlines

Plaintiff Horace Greeley moved for class action certification against KLM Royal Dutch Airlines after his jewelry was lost during a flight and KLM offered a settlement based on tariff rules that Greeley claims are invalid under the Warsaw Convention. Greeley refused to settle and brought an action. He alleges KLM engaged in a fraudulent pattern by relying on these tariffs to limit liability for lost baggage. The court denied the motion for class certification, finding that Greeley failed to meet the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the court found that Greeley's interests were not coextensive with those of the proposed class members who had settled, and therefore his claim was not typical, nor could he adequately represent the class. The court ruled that Greeley's individual action could proceed.

Class ActionMotion DeniedWarsaw ConventionLost BaggageAirline LiabilityTariff RegulationsRule 23(a) RequirementsAdequate RepresentationTypicality of ClaimsFraud Allegations
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Globe Insurance v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp.

Plaintiff, an insurer named Royal, sued its insured, Chock Full O'Nuts Corporation, for unpaid insurance premiums and service charges. Chock counterclaimed, alleging unfair claim settlement practices under Insurance Law § 40-d, breach of contractual and fiduciary duties, and sought punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Special Term dismissed the fourth counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim for punitive damages, holding that Insurance Law § 40-d does not create a private right of action for punitive damages, and such damages require a showing of morally culpable and wanton dishonesty beyond mere breach of contract or negligence. The court also found attorneys' fees were not recoverable. The lower court's order was modified to remove the option for Chock to replead the punitive damages counterclaim.

Punitive DamagesInsurance Law § 40-dBreach of ContractUnfair Claims PracticesPrivate Right of ActionAppellate ReviewCounterclaim DismissalFiduciary DutyNegligenceAttorneys' Fees
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 82 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