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

Crotona 1967 Corp. v. Vidu Bros.

Plaintiff Crotona 1967 Corporation sought summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against Vidu Brother Corp. and a personal guaranty against Harshad Patel. Defendants argued fraudulent inducement regarding the real estate transaction and the temporary nature of Patel's guaranty. The court granted summary judgment against Vidu Brother Corp., finding their fraudulent inducement defense invalid due to a lack of reasonable reliance and specific contractual clauses. However, a genuine issue of material fact regarding the intended temporary duration of Patel's personal guaranty precluded summary judgment against him. The court denied attorney's fees without a hearing on reasonableness.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementPersonal GuarantyContract LawReal Estate TransactionStatute of FraudsDiversity JurisdictionCorporate LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KBL CORP. v. Arnouts

KBL Corp., a residential home builder, brought an action against architects Robert A. Arnouts and Arnouts Associates Architects, Inc. for contribution, indemnification, and inducement to infringe. KBL had previously settled two copyright infringement lawsuits filed by Frank Betz Associates, Inc. related to home designs. KBL asserted that Arnouts, who modified and approved the designs, was liable for the infringement. The court analyzed each claim, concluding that federal and New York State law do not provide a right to contribution or indemnification among co-infringers in this context, nor an independent claim for inducement to infringe distinct from contributory infringement. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the case was closed.

Copyright InfringementContributionIndemnificationInducement to InfringeFederal Common LawNew York State LawMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Co-infringersSettlement
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ozga v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed June 27, 1997, which denied death benefits to a claimant, ruling that the death of their 35-year-old decedent was not causally related to a work-related hand injury. The decedent, a seafood clerk, sustained a sprain and bruise in January 1994 and died in May 1994 from alcohol-induced hepatitis. Conflicting medical testimonies were presented: one expert attributed death to alcohol-induced hepatitis and cardiorespiratory failure, unrelated to the hand injury; another attributed it to blood poisoning stemming from the injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's prerogative to weigh conflicting medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsConflicting Medical TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewAlcohol-Induced HepatitisHand InjuryMedical Expert OpinionAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initiated civil contempt proceedings against Local Union No. 3 for violating a temporary injunction issued on October 28, 1971. The injunction prohibited Local 3 from inducing or encouraging its members employed by L. K. Comstock and Co., Lord Electric Co., and J. Livingston & Co. to refuse handling materials from New York Telephone Co. The court found that Local 3, through its attorney's statements and inaction, induced its members to engage in such refusals on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court found Local 3 in civil contempt, ordering it to comply with the injunction, submit a sworn statement of compliance, and pay the NLRB's costs and counsel fees.

Labor LawCivil ContemptTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottNational Labor Relations ActUnion MisconductWork StoppageInducementEmployee Refusal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds v. Knit Goods Workers' Union, Local No. 155

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155 (ILGWU). The NLRB alleged that Local 155 engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing James Knitting Mills and inducing employees to strike or refuse services, with the aim of forcing James to recognize Local 155 despite Local 710 being the certified bargaining representative. The court found that while peaceful picketing was permissible, certain actions by Local 155's agents, such as obstructing deliveries and offering inducements to employees, exceeded lawful bounds after Local 710's certification. Consequently, the court granted a temporary injunction to restrain Local 155 from such coercive actions pending the NLRB's final determination.

labor lawunfair labor practiceinjunctionpicketingunion disputecollective bargainingNLRBcertificationstrike inducementemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1995

Big Apple Car, Inc. v. City of New York

This action involves contracts awarded to the plaintiff, Big Apple Car, Inc., by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) for emergency transportation services. Defendants, the City of New York, became aware in 1987 of fraudulent vouchers submitted by the plaintiff, with HRA employees also implicated. A prior appeal upheld the City's right to terminate contracts due to fraud, even though later contracts were awarded to facilitate a criminal investigation. The current order addresses motions for summary judgment regarding breach of contract and fraud in the inducement claims. The Court modified a previous order, denying plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add fraudulent inducement claims, while affirming the denial of the City's summary judgment on its counterclaim.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementFraudulent VouchersContract TerminationCriminal InvestigationAmendment of ComplaintAccount StatedAppellate ReviewHRA Contracts
References
4
Case No. 14-CV-6097 (JFB) (ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2017

Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee v. Walsh

This Memorandum and Order addresses a motion to dismiss a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claim and a New York State law fraudulent inducement claim. Plaintiffs, including Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee, alleged that defendant Edward M. Walsh, Jr. diverted monetary donations intended for the Suffolk County Conservative Party for his personal use, constituting mail and wire fraud. The Court found that while plaintiffs had standing, they failed to plead the mail and wire fraud predicate acts with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Consequently, the RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraudulent inducement claim, dismissing it without prejudice to refiling in state court.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudMotion to DismissPleading StandardsRule 9(b)Fraudulent InducementCivil ProcedureFederal CourtsSuffolk County
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stahl Equities Corp. v. Prudential Building Maintenance Corp.

The case involves a plaintiff-landlord and a defendant-cleaning services provider regarding a contract for cleaning services at 277 Park Avenue. Plaintiff alleged overcharges based on fraud in the inducement, claiming defendant misrepresented staffing requirements, which impacted the fixed contract price and escalation payments. Defendant counterclaimed for unpaid services. The trial court dismissed the fraud claim but found an ambiguity in the escalation provisions, leading to a trial on that issue, ultimately ruling in favor of the defendant. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the fraud in the inducement claim, finding that the reliance on Danann Realty Corp. v Harris was erroneous due to the absence of a merger or disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court reinstated plaintiff's fraud and breach of contract claims and remanded the case for a new trial.

Contract DisputeFraud in the InducementBreach of ContractEscalation ClauseManning TablesMisrepresentationParol EvidenceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewRemand
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Avanade, Inc.

Plaintiff Andrew S. Cohen sued his former employer, Avanade Inc., and two employees, Matthew McCafferty and Aziz Virani, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, malicious conduct, harm to professional reputation, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Cohen claimed he was induced into employment by false representations regarding Avanade's application management capabilities, leading to lost sales opportunities and damage to his professional standing. Defendants sought dismissal of the entire complaint. The Court granted the motion, dismissing all claims. It determined the compensation plan was not a binding contract, fraud claims lacked the required specificity, and New York law did not support the malicious conduct or professional reputation claims. Additionally, negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims failed due to the absence of an independent duty or special relationship, and were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Motion to DismissBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Promissory Estoppel
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 141 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