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

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galati v. New York Convention Center Development Corp.

A plaintiff, an electrical maintenance worker at the Jacob Javits Center, sustained an injury after slipping on water in a hallway. The water was believed to have originated from an ice machine used by employees of Service America Corporation, the food vendor at the Javits Center. Plaintiff observed Service America workers transporting ice shortly before the fall and noted frequent drips from their carts. While Service America acknowledged prior spills and safety discussions, the Supreme Court initially found insufficient evidence to hold them responsible. However, an appellate court disagreed, ruling that the cumulative evidence was sufficient to withstand the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the case to proceed.

slip and fallpremises liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentappellate reviewevidence sufficiencyice spillworkplace injuryJavits CenterService America Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York

This negligence action was brought by Anastasia Joliet Renee Brown, a minor represented by her adoptive mother, against Harlem Dowling-Westside Center for Children and Family Services (HDWC), Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), and the City of New York. Plaintiff alleged gross negligence in returning her to her abusive birth mother after foster care, despite a prior Family Court order to terminate parental rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming statutory and common-law immunity. The court denied HDWC's motion as untimely and unsupported by sufficient evidence. The City's motion was also denied, as the court found material issues of fact regarding gross negligence and deemed the immunity claims inapplicable or unproven.

Child NegligenceFoster CareChild AbuseSummary JudgmentGovernment ImmunitySocial Services LawCPLRGross NegligenceMinisterial ActsDiscretionary Acts
References
10
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

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Spitzer v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sara Spitzer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc., and Germonds Properties Corporation. Spitzer had suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall incident at the shopping center, allegedly due to a maintenance worker. The defendants presented evidence that an independent contractor, not their employees, performed the cleaning services. The court found no intrinsic danger in the cleaning activity and no proof of defendant control over the contractor's work. Consequently, the defendants were not held liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence, and the order dismissing the complaint against them was affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceSlip and FallProperty Owner LiabilityMaintenance ServicesConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1992

Stat Medical Services, Inc. v. Daughters of Jacob Geriatric Center, Inc.

Plaintiff Stat Medical Services, Inc. sued Daughters of Jacob Geriatric Center, Inc. for $123,770.11 in unpaid invoices for temporary nursing services. DOJ conceded liability but raised an affirmative defense of commercial bribery under New York Penal Law § 180.00, alleging STAT hired DOJ's office manager, Marcia Alexander, without DOJ's consent and with intent to influence her conduct. The court found that while STAT conferred a benefit on Alexander by employing her without DOJ's consent, DOJ failed to prove the crucial third element: STAT's intent to influence Alexander's conduct. The court emphasized that the mere fact of secret employment does not automatically establish intent to influence, and defendant did not provide clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the affirmative defense and counterclaim failed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the unpaid invoices plus prejudgment interest, totaling $147,468.81.

Commercial BriberyNew York Penal LawAffirmative DefenseIntent to InfluenceBurden of ProofClear and Convincing EvidenceTemporary Nursing ServicesUnpaid InvoicesEmployment LawContract Dispute
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,324 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