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

Hyman v. Schwartz

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss several counterclaims filed by defendant Arthur Schwartz. Plaintiff, identified as Hyman from prior related cases, initially sued Schwartz and his law firm for legal malpractice and emotional distress. Schwartz, a licensed attorney who previously represented Hyman, subsequently asserted four counterclaims: breach of contract, quantum meruit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court denied Hyman's motion to dismiss these counterclaims. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order. It affirmed the denial of dismissal for the quantum meruit counterclaim, finding Schwartz adequately stated a cause of action. However, the appellate court reversed the denial and dismissed the counterclaims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort, concluding that documentary evidence contradicted the breach of contract claim and the alleged conduct for emotional distress and prima facie tort did not meet the required legal thresholds. The court also affirmed the denial of Hyman's motion to renew her claims regarding proper service on Schwartz's former partners, Stuart Lichten and Daniel Bright.

Legal MalpracticeCounterclaimsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureService of Process
References
35
Case No. 08094
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2020

Revis v. Schwartz

Darrelle Revis and his corporate entity Shavae, LLC, sued Neil Schwartz, Schwartz & Feinsod, LLC, and Jonathan Feinsod, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and fraud. The claims arose from a standard representation agreement (SRA) and a separate oral marketing and endorsement agreement. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the SRA, by incorporating NFLPA regulations and AAA rules, delegated arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. The Supreme Court granted the motion, compelling arbitration for all parties and staying the action. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the contractual documents, including incorporated AAA rules, clearly and unmistakably evidenced an intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, extending even to nonsignatory defendants and Shavae, LLC, under the direct benefits theory of estoppel. A dissenting opinion argued that the SRA's arbitration clause was limited to disputes 'of this Agreement' (the SRA) and did not extend to the separate oral agreement, raising a factual question about Schwartz's role as an attorney for the marketing and endorsement deal.

arbitration agreementarbitrabilityNFLPA regulationsAAA rulescontract interpretationfiduciary dutybreach of contractfraudnonsignatoriesdirect benefits estoppel
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. Fortune Magazine

Plaintiff Barth David Schwartz sued FORTUNE Magazine for breach of contract, specifically concerning paragraphs 17 and 32 of an agreement dated August 1, 1997, related to selling special advertising sections. A jury initially found in favor of Schwartz on the breach of paragraph 32, awarding $108,000 in damages. FORTUNE subsequently moved for a judgment as a matter of law. The court granted FORTUNE's motion, finding that FORTUNE did not breach paragraph 17, and that its actions to terminate the contract under paragraph 32 were made in good faith and provided sufficient notice. Additionally, the court determined that Schwartz failed to present evidence of damages directly caused by the alleged breach of the pretermination notice provision, leading to the setting aside of the jury's damage award and entry of judgment for FORTUNE on both claims.

Breach of contractContract terminationJudgment as a matter of lawRule 50(b)Pretermination noticeIndependent contractor agreementAdvertising salesContract interpretationDamagesJury verdict
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians & Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund, brought suit against Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc. seeking an audit of payroll records from 1992-1994 to verify pension fund contributions. Steven Scott moved for summary judgment, asserting that fifteen prior settlement agreements with William Moriarity, a Pension Fund Trustee and Local 802 President, fully settled all monetary claims. The court found that Steven Scott reasonably relied on Moriarity's apparent authority, and the Pension Fund's actions, including cashing checks and failing to repudiate the agreements, established equitable estoppel and ratification. Consequently, the court granted Steven Scott's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Pension Fund was bound by the agreements and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

ERISALMRAPension FundEquitable EstoppelApparent AuthorityRatificationSettlement AgreementsSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsUnion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. Apfel

Irving Schwartz brought an action against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a denied claim for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Schwartz, a 64-year-old former restaurant manager, alleged disability due to monocular vision in his right eye. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found him not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court, presided over by Judge Nickerson, found that the Commissioner's decision lacked substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to properly apply the heightened standards for 'transferable' and 'highly marketable' skills required for claimants approaching retirement age (60-64 years old). The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a specific determination on skill marketability.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsMonocular VisionAge DiscriminationTransferable SkillsMarketable SkillsResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertRetirement Age
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07587 [176 AD3d 1069]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2019

Matter of Rosenberg v. Schwartz

The case involves Eric Rosenberg and Allan Schwartz, who were 50% owners of Blind Builders USA, Inc. They agreed to arbitrate their claims to the company's assets before a rabbinical arbitration tribunal, which issued an award including the distribution of accounts receivable. Rosenberg sought to confirm the award, while Schwartz moved to vacate it, arguing it was indefinite regarding the accounts receivable distribution. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed appeals from prior orders and an earlier judgment. It modified the December 23, 2016, judgment, finding the arbitration award indefinite as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable incurred prior to the award date were to be distributed. Consequently, that portion of the award was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the rabbinical arbitration tribunal for further proceedings on that specific issue.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardAccounts ReceivableBusiness DisputePartnership DisputeRabbinical Arbitration TribunalIndefinite AwardNonfinal Award
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17

Patterson-Stevens (plaintiff) sought to vacate a July 24, 1995 judgment and amend its complaint against Local 17 (defendant). The original complaint sought an injunction to prevent arbitration of a grievance initiated by Local 17, which Patterson argued was untimely under a six-month statute of limitations. The court initially dismissed the case, lacking jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Patterson-Stevens then moved to vacate, arguing the complaint implicitly stated a claim for declaratory judgment. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice in its prior decision. Furthermore, the proposed amendment for declaratory relief was deemed futile, as there was no legal precedent supporting a statute of limitations for grievance submission, unlike federal court actions.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Vacate JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
6
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2005

Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 v. Schwartz

This case consolidates two appeals arising from a 1985 real estate exchange involving Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 AFL-CIO (TWU) and 80 W.E.T.H. Corp. (80 WETH). Action No. 1 targeted real estate agents Alan G. Schwartz, Glen Allen Associates, Ltd., and Glen Equities, Ltd. for breach of fiduciary duty, contract, and constructive fraud. Action No. 2 was against attorney Richard L. O’Hara for breach of fiduciary duty and actual fraud. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Schwartz defendants, ruling claims time-barred under the statute of limitations, rejecting continuous representation and equitable estoppel. In the O'Hara action, breach of fiduciary duty claims were also dismissed as time-barred, but the actual fraud claim, initially preserved, was modified on appeal to be dismissed for 80 WETH. The disputes centered on undisclosed fees and potential conflicts of interest during the 1985 transaction.

Real Estate LawStatute of LimitationsBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelContinuous Representation DoctrineBrokerage FeesAttorney MisconductActual FraudConstructive Fraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2008

Barnett v. Schwartz

The plaintiffs sued their attorneys for legal malpractice concerning a lease and purchase option agreement for commercial property. The property was classified as an inactive hazardous waste disposal site, a fact the attorneys, Jeffrey Schwartz and his law firm, knew but allegedly failed to disclose to the plaintiffs, advising them to enter an "as is" agreement. Two years later, the plaintiffs discovered the environmental contamination. The attorneys then reportedly advised them to continue paying rent and exercise the purchase option, assuring a quick cleanup, which ultimately took three years. A jury found the defendants liable for malpractice for failing to inform the plaintiffs about the environmental issues and the implications of the "as is" clause. The appellate court upheld the jury's findings on liability and damages but modified the judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceEnvironmental ContaminationAs Is ClauseProperty LeasePurchase OptionProximate CauseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06534
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Stevens v. Carey

The father, Robert Stevens, appealed from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County, entered August 23, 2019, which dismissed his petition to modify a prior order of custody and parental access. The Family Court had dismissed the petition without prejudice, awaiting a comprehensive substance abuse evaluation from the father. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father failed to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the parental access arrangements and had not addressed his substance abuse and mental health issues.

Custody ModificationParental AccessFamily Court AppealSubstance Abuse EvaluationChange in CircumstancesBest Interests of the ChildAppellate DivisionDismissal Without PrejudiceChild Custody
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 251 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