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

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

Hospital Service Plan v. Warehouse Production & Sales Employees Union

The appellants, who are successors in interest to the original defendants, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The order denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to execute a 'satisfaction piece' after the appellants paid the judgment with interest calculated at the New York rate. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that according to the principles of full faith and credit, the judgment from New Jersey required interest to be paid at the 8% New Jersey rate, not the 6% New York rate. Additionally, the appellants were deemed responsible for the Sheriff's levy costs because they failed to properly serve the Sheriff with a stay of execution, thereby necessitating the levy.

Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditInterest RatesSheriff's LevySatisfaction PieceNew Jersey JudgmentNew York LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. H.O. Penn MacHinery Co.

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. (Truck Sales) initiated a lawsuit in state court against H.O. Penn Machinery Co. and Caterpillar, Inc., asserting several claims, including one under the Federal Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act. The case was subsequently removed to federal court by H.O. Penn, and both defendants filed motions to dismiss. Truck Sales later withdrew its federal claim and moved for the case to be remanded to state court. The District Court, after considering principles of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and relevant precedents like United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, decided to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Given the prompt withdrawal of the sole federal claim, the court determined that remanding the case to the New York State Supreme Court was appropriate in the interest of comity and judicial economy.

Federal Question JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemandFederal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court ActContract DisputeState Law ClaimsJudicial EconomyComityWithdrawal of Federal ClaimMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Haberle

This appeal concerns whether Ulster County's failure to notify a mortgagee, Dorothy H. Bowden, of an impending tax sale deprived her of due process, thereby nullifying the tax sale as to her interest. The plaintiff acquired tax-delinquent property from Ulster County, which had purchased it after the record owner, Sharon Haberle, failed to pay taxes. Bowden, a mortgagee of the property, was not served with notice of the tax sale or the redemption period. The court found that the lack of notice to Bowden substantially impaired her property interest and violated her due process rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment against Bowden was reversed, the tax sale and conveyance affecting her mortgage interest were annulled, and her mortgage was reinstated.

Due ProcessTax SaleMortgagee RightsNotice RequirementsReal PropertySummary JudgmentAnnulmentMortgage ReinstatementTax DelinquencyProperty Interest
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Stone Bank v. Jason Gibbs, Inc. (In re Brookfield Clothes, Inc.)

Old Stone Bank, the plaintiff, filed an adversary proceeding and moved for summary judgment against Brookfield Clothes, Inc. and Jason Gibbs, Inc. The Bank asserted a valid security interest in specific equipment transferred from Brookfield to Gibbs, claiming non-payment and seeking recovery, damages, and conversion remedies. After initial defenses, Gibbs amended its answer, tendering the equipment and raising cross-claims against Brookfield for misrepresentation. The court determined the Bank held a duly perfected security interest and, on consent, granted possession of the equipment to the Bank. The motion for summary judgment was granted against Gibbs for post-sale monetary relief and against Brookfield for pre-sale payments, with a denial for post-sale claims against Brookfield.

Summary JudgmentBankruptcySecurity InterestEquipment LeasingAsset SaleChapter 11 DebtorAdversary ProceedingLien PriorityConversion ClaimCross-Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lawrence United Corp.

The Monroe Group, Inc. (Monroe) sought to compel General Accident Insurance Company of America (General Accident) to release commissions owed from a court-approved sale of the Debtor's assets. The Debtor, a former agent for General Accident, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and its Rochester office assets were sold to Monroe 'free and clear of all liens and other interests.' General Accident withheld commissions, arguing a right of recoupment for prepetition premiums owed by the Debtor, which it contended was not an 'interest' extinguished by the sale order. The court determined it had 'core' jurisdiction over the dispute, finding that General Accident's alleged right of recoupment was not an 'interest' under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) and could not be asserted against postpetition commissions to recover prepetition premiums. Consequently, the court granted Monroe's motion, compelling General Accident to release the commissions.

Bankruptcy Court JurisdictionChapter 11 BankruptcyAsset SalesRecoupment RightsInsurance CommissionsDebtor-in-PossessionSecured ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSale Free and Clear of InterestsPostpetition vs. Prepetition Debts
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic of the Philippines v. Abaya

The Republic of the Philippines filed a lawsuit against Gavino Abaya, Juan Abaya, Susan Abaya, Diane Dunne, and Barbara Stone, alleging state-law claims including money had and received, unjust enrichment, and conversion. These claims stem from the distribution of proceeds from the sale of Claude Monet's "Le Bassin aux Nymphease," a painting allegedly stolen from the Republic by Imelda Marcos's social secretary, Vilma Bautista, and subsequently sold by the defendants. Jose Duran, representing a class of judgment creditors of Imelda Marcos and her family, sought to intervene in the case, asserting a claim to the painting's sale proceeds based on a judgment against Imelda Marcos. The court granted Class Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), finding their motion timely, their interest direct and legally protectable, their ability to protect that interest potentially impaired without intervention, and their interests not adequately represented by the existing parties due to conflicting claims over the assets.

Intervention of RightFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Stolen ArtworkMonet PaintingJudgment CreditorsImelda Marcos EstateAsset RecoveryUnjust EnrichmentConversion ClaimsEquitable Relief
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2009

George v. IBC Sales Corp.

The defendant IBC Sales Corporation appealed an order denying its cross-motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death action. The decedent, an employee of Interstate Brands Corporation (Brands), was killed at a bakery thrift store owned by IBC Sales, a subsidiary of Brands. The plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, filed a workers' compensation claim, which found a work-related death, and then sued IBC Sales. IBC Sales argued that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of Brands or the decedent's special employer. The Supreme Court denied IBC Sales’s cross-motion, finding questions of fact regarding the alter ego status and special employment relationship. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that IBC Sales failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAlter EgoSpecial EmployeeParent SubsidiaryCorporate VeilAppellate ReviewNew York StateNassau County
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,810 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