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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05272
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v. Sudano

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff, Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which dismissed its action against Linda M. Sudano on the grounds of lack of standing. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments that collateral estoppel barred reexamination of standing and that the court erred in its determination. The appellate court emphasized that every court retains continuing jurisdiction to reconsider its interlocutory orders. Crucially, the plaintiff failed to include the necessary documents, such as the summons and complaint and evidence of assignment, in the record on appeal, preventing the court from verifying its standing as the holder or assignee of the note and mortgage at the commencement of the action. The court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to assemble a proper record compelled the affirmation of the lower court's order.

mortgage foreclosurestandingcollateral estoppelnote and mortgage assignmentappellate reviewrecord on appealsummary judgmentjurisdictionappellant's burdenErie County
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hammond v. Toy Industry Ass'n

Richard and Suzanne Hammond sued Toy Industry Association, Inc. (TIA), Freeman Decorating Services, Inc. (Freeman), and Jerome Bell for injuries Mr. Hammond sustained at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. CompWest Insurance Company intervened as a plaintiff. The defendants, third-party defendant Fiesta, and cross-claim defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted Bell's motion to dismiss the Hammonds' claims due to a time-bar under N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 2570, finding Bell was an employee of NYCCOC. Freeman's motion for summary judgment on the Hammonds' negligence claims was denied, though the negligent supervision claim was dismissed. TIA's motion for summary judgment on the Hammonds' claims was granted, as TIA was deemed a licensee without control over the premises. The court denied various cross-motions for contractual indemnification between TIA, Freeman, and Fiesta, citing factual disputes, but dismissed TIA's common-law indemnification claims and all of Fiesta's cross-claims.

Summary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsPremises LiabilityContractual IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsSpecial Employer DoctrineWorkers' Compensation CarrierJavits Center AccidentTrade Show OperationsForklift Injury
References
38
Case No. 94 Civ. 654 (MBM), 94 Civ. 2978 (MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bluebird Partners, LP v. First Fidelity Bank

Bluebird Partners, L.P., a secondary purchaser of equipment trust interests for Continental Airlines, sued indenture trustees and their law firms for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) and state law. Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to prudently protect certificate holders' interests during Continental's bankruptcy by not acting timely on adequate protection motions. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bluebird Partners lacked standing as a secondary purchaser because federal TIA claims do not automatically transfer with the security. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that under federal common law, TIA claims do not automatically transfer to subsequent purchasers who were not injured at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, thus denying standing to Bluebird Partners. The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Trust Indenture ActStandingSecondary PurchaserSecurities LawBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayAdequate ProtectionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNegligence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2002

Semi-Tech Litigation, LLC v. Bankers Trust Co.

This is an action brought by Semi-Tech Litigation LLC, an assignee formed under a Chapter 11 plan of liquidation for Semi-Tech Corporation, against Bankers Trust Company (BT). The plaintiff alleges that BT, as the indenture trustee for Semi-Tech notes, breached its obligations under the indenture, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), and its fiduciary duties by failing to adequately protect note holders and accepting deficient compliance certificates. BT moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, asserting that a bankruptcy entity cannot sue on behalf of third-party note holders, that TIA claims were not properly assigned, and that the assignments were void under New York's champerty statute. The Court denied BT's motion to dismiss. It found that BT's challenge to the assignment of claims from Record Date Note Holders was barred by res judicata due to a Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order. However, the Court indicated that determining when TIA claims accrued and the extent of proper assignment could not be resolved on the current record. The champerty defense was also rejected, as the court is hesitant to find an action champertous as a matter of law without clearer evidence of sole or primary intent to sue.

BankruptcyChapter 11 PlanLiquidationIndenture TrusteeTrust Indenture Act of 1939Breach of Fiduciary DutyStandingAssignment of ClaimsRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
42
Case No. 11-CV-0782 (RRM)(RER)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2015

Fixed Income Shares: Series M v. Citibank N.A.

This case involves a derivative action brought by Plaintiffs against Citibank N.A. as trustee for twenty-seven residential mortgage-backed securities trusts. Plaintiffs allege Citibank breached contractual duties, committed state-law torts, and violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA). Citibank moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted in part and denied in part Citibank's motion, dismissing state-law claims related to PSA Trusts due to predominance and declining supplemental jurisdiction, and dismissing certain negligence and fiduciary duty claims as duplicative of contract claims. However, the breach of contract, TIA, and duty-of-independence claims regarding the Indenture Trusts survived the motion to dismiss.

Trust Indenture ActRMBSMortgage-backed securitiesTrustee dutiesBreach of contractFiduciary dutyNegligenceMotion to dismissSupplemental jurisdictionSubject matter jurisdiction
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio v. HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n

This action addresses HSBC Bank USA, National Association's alleged failure to fulfill its trustee duties for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. Initially filed in state court, the case was removed to federal court under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA). After it was determined that certain trusts (PSA Trusts) were not governed by the TIA, defendants moved to dismiss related state law claims due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought supplemental jurisdiction, arguing that the state law claims shared a common factual basis with the federal claims concerning Indenture Trusts. The court denied the defendants' motion, affirming the existence of supplemental jurisdiction given the significant overlap in facts, legal issues, and parties, thereby promoting judicial economy.

Residential Mortgage-Backed SecuritiesTrust Indenture ActSupplemental JurisdictionSubject-Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissPooling and Servicing AgreementsIndenture TrustsTrustee DutiesContract LawBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

UNITED FOOD AND COMMER. WORKERS UNIONS AND FOOD EMPLOYEES BENEFIT FUND v. DeBuono

The United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Food Employees Benefit Fund, headquartered in California, challenged New York’s Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) surcharge system. The Fund argued that the surcharges violated the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and were actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. New York’s HCRA imposes surcharges on patient care, with higher rates for payors not registered with the state, a category the Fund fell into. The Fund contended that these additional costs were punitive and disproportionately affected out-of-state payors. The defendants maintained that the system was not discriminatory and offered a practical alternative. The court, acting sua sponte, assessed its subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA). It concluded that the HCRA surcharges constituted 'taxes' for TIA purposes and that New York State provided an adequate remedy through declaratory judgment under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3001. Consequently, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Health Care Reform ActHCRA SurchargesTax Injunction ActSubject Matter JurisdictionCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseERISARegulatory FeesState TaxationFederal Abstention
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1997

In re Tia B.

The Family Court, New York County, affirmed an order of disposition which, upon a finding of neglect, placed the respondent's child under the petitioner Commissioner's supervision for 12 months and mandated random drug testing for the respondent. The neglect finding was based on the respondent's failure to provide adequate shelter and refusal of assistance for alternative housing. The court deemed academic the respondent's claim of lack of notice regarding an additional finding that the child was neglected by being left with a known drug-abusing mother, noting that this claim was also unpreserved. The directive for random drug testing was upheld due to evidence of the respondent's relationship with a crack user and a social worker's report indicating both parents' addiction to crack.

Family LawChild NeglectDrug TestingParental RightsAdequate ShelterChild WelfareFamily CourtAppellate DivisionDue ProcessEvidence Preponderance
References
4
Case No. 2017-913 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal initiated by Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C., acting as the assignee of Carrington, Earnel, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The appeal originated from an order by the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court's decision was predicated on the finding that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the limits established by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order. This decision was made in conjunction with a related case, BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., decided concurrently.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAutomobile insuranceFirst-party benefitsMedical provider claimAssigned benefitsCivil Court appealAppellate Term decision
References
1
Showing 1-9 of 9 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