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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01609 [225 AD3d 520]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Linares v. Massachussetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Jose Linares, an employee of Tolmac Contracting Inc., sustained injuries after falling from stacked compound buckets while performing work in a building owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MMLI) and Capital Builders Group, Inc. (Capital). Linares moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting that MMLI/Capital failed to provide adequate safety devices. MMLI/Capital and Tolmac sought summary judgment to dismiss various Labor Law and common law negligence claims. The Supreme Court granted Linares's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common law negligence claims, while affirming the decision regarding Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityLack of Safety DevicesForeman Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1997

Reeves Bros., Inc. v. Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.

Reeves Brothers, Inc. (Reeves) sought confirmation of an arbitration award against Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp. (Capital). Capital cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging inadequate disclosure of relationships between two arbitrators, Norman Hackel and Lawrence H. Bober, and Reeves. The underlying dispute involved unpaid invoices for chemically-treated fabric sold by Reeves to Capital. The arbitration, conducted under the General Arbitration Council of the Textile and Apparel Industries (GAC), resulted in a unanimous award in favor of Reeves. Capital challenged the arbitrators' qualifications during the process, but the GAC denied the applications for disqualification. The court, applying Federal Arbitration Law and the 'evident partiality' standard, found that Capital failed to demonstrate sufficient partiality or prejudice to vacate the award. Therefore, the court granted Reeves' motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Capital's cross-motion to vacate it.

ArbitrationArbitrator DisclosureEvident PartialityVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCommercial DisputeTextile IndustryUCC 2-207Federal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Odeon Capital Group, LLC v. Ackerman

This opinion and order by Judge Jed S. Rakoff addresses cross-motions to vacate and confirm a FINRA arbitration award. An arbitration panel awarded Bret Ackerman $1,102,193 against Odeon Capital Group, LLC, Mathew Van Alstyne, and Evan Schwartzberg for unpaid wages. Petitioners sought to vacate the award, alleging arbitrator misconduct in evidentiary rulings and manifest disregard of the law regarding damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, and attempted to amend their petition to include fraud. The Court denied the petition to vacate, finding no violation of fundamental fairness or manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrators, and also denied the application to amend the petition, ruling that any alleged perjury was not material. Consequently, the Court granted Ackerman's cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award and awarded costs but denied attorneys' fees for the current proceeding.

Arbitration AwardFINRA ArbitrationVacaturConfirmationUnpaid WagesArbitrator MisconductManifest Disregard of LawAttorneys' FeesPrejudgment InterestFederal Arbitration Act
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. 00-CV-905
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Trade Commission v. First Capital Consumer Membership Services, Inc.

Non-party Electronic Payment Exchange (EPX) sought to intervene as a plaintiff in a case initiated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against First Capital defendants. EPX claimed a significant financial interest due to an outstanding debt from defendant Worldwide Telecom, Inc., and a specific interest in funds held in the "Dakota Financial Group" account seized by the FTC and placed under receivership. EPX moved to intervene as of right and by permission, arguing its interests were not adequately protected by the FTC or the Receiver. The court denied EPX's motion, finding that EPX did not demonstrate that its interests would be impaired or inadequately protected, especially given the FTC's role as parens patriae and the Receiver's obligation to all claimants. The court also noted that EPX had alternative avenues for relief and that allowing intervention would introduce collateral issues and unduly delay the main action.

InterventionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2)Asset FreezeReceivershipPromissory NoteCreditor ClaimsAdequacy of RepresentationParens PatriaeCollateral Issues
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03158 [238 AD3d 635]
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Matter of Jefferies LLC v. IsZo Capital LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment confirming an arbitration award of $1,045,250 in favor of Jefferies LLC against IsZo Capital LP. IsZo Capital sought to vacate the award, arguing that arbitrators exceeded their power by violating federal bankruptcy court orders confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plans and that the award was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The court rejected this, finding 11 USC § 1141 (a) inapplicable as neither party was bound by its provisions. The court also rejected IsZo Capital's claim that the arbitration panel's order to remove website materials constituted a prior restraint on free speech, as it enforced a contractual agreement prohibiting the use of Jefferies LLC's name or logo without consent. The court concluded that enforcing such agreements does not violate public policy against prior restraint. Furthermore, IsZo Capital's challenge to the legal fee award was not preserved for appellate review.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardArbitrator's PowersFederal Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 Reorganization PlansPreemptionFirst Amendment RightsPrior RestraintContractual AgreementsLegal Fees
References
4
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,740 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