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

Moll v. US Life Title Insurance Co. of New York

The case involves plaintiffs Moll, Elser, McGuire, and Harlow suing US Life Title Insurance Company of New York, asserting claims under RESPA, RICO, and state laws. Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation, failure to disclose kickbacks to attorneys, and aiding and abetting fraud related to title insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to adequately allege mail fraud or commercial bribery as predicate acts for RICO claims, citing insufficient evidence of misrepresentation, a duty to disclose, substantial assistance in fraud, or economic harm due to non-negotiable premiums. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted, leave to replead was denied, and pendent state law claims were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActRESPA ActMail FraudCommercial BriberyFraud AllegationsMotion to DismissPendent State ClaimsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Title Insurance
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs Cliff and Betsy Lang filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company of New York, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law § 349. The plaintiffs claimed they were overcharged for title insurance during a mortgage refinancing, as they did not receive a discounted rate they believed they were entitled to under state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the RESPA claim, arguing that RESPA § 8(b) does not provide a private right of action for 'overcharges'. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, finding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits fees for unperformed services or splits, not simply excessive charges. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

RESPATitle InsuranceMortgage RefinancingOvercharge ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal CourtState LawSupplemental JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPleading Standards
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02617
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over cash proceeds from the demutualization of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). Petitioner, Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP, purchased the professional liability insurance policy and paid all associated premiums. Respondent, Rachel S. Title, M.D., was the named insured but did not contribute to the policy costs. The Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds, including accrued interest, and directed the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, to enter judgment accordingly. The decision affirmed that awarding the proceeds to the respondent would constitute unjust enrichment, as she did not pay for the policy or bargain for the demutualization benefits.

Demutualization proceedsProfessional liability insuranceUnjust enrichmentInsurance policyPremium paymentsAppellate DivisionCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Perna

Claimant Marino sued defendant Perna for breach of warranty of title after purchasing a stolen automobile, which led to his son's arrest and the car's seizure. Perna had bought the car from third-party defendant Marshal Locascio at a traffic auction. The court found that Locascio, as a Marshal, was exempt from implied warranty of title under UCC 2-312, and the action against him was also barred by a one-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court ruled in favor of Marino against Perna for breach of warranty of title, awarding $1,200 for the car's value, but denying consequential damages for legal fees due to lack of foreseeability on Perna's part.

breach of warrantywarranty of titlestolen vehicleUniform Commercial CodeStatute of LimitationsMarshal salepublic auctionconsequential damagesautomobile saleimplied warranty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Fitzgerald sued his employer, Chicago Title Insurance Co., alleging disability discrimination under New York law after he was discharged. Fitzgerald claimed his termination, occurring during a company consolidation and layoffs, was due to the employer learning he was seeing a psychiatrist for depression. Chicago Title moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged disability was not protected and Fitzgerald failed to present evidence of discriminatory animus. The court reviewed Fitzgerald's performance and the communication of his psychiatric care to company personnel, finding no direct link to the termination decision-makers. The court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that Fitzgerald failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding discriminatory motivation under either pretext or mixed-motive analysis.

Disability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawPretext DiscriminationMixed Motive AnalysisMental ImpairmentDepressionEmployer LiabilityEmployment Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,870 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