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

Viviano v. Allard

This case involves a postjudgment application for equitable distribution of a class action settlement by a former wife against her former husband. The parties were divorced in 1984, with all known marital property having been distributed. The husband became a member of a class action lawsuit against Continental Can Company, where his employment was terminated prior to the divorce, leading to a substantial monetary settlement in 1990. The wife, learning of this settlement in 1992, filed for equitable distribution, arguing the proceeds constituted marital property. The Supreme Court ordered a hearing, finding that the settlement proceeds, if known at the time of divorce, would have been considered marital property. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unusual circumstances where an asset was unknown to both parties at the time of the divorce, thereby justifying an opportunity for the wife to litigate the issue. The court held that benefits earned during the marriage, even if realized post-divorce, could be subject to equitable distribution.

Divorce LawEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyClass Action SettlementPostjudgment ReliefRes Judicata ExceptionAppellate ReviewUnforeseen AssetsDeferred CompensationFamily Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Turner

After a 30-year marriage, the plaintiff wife initiated a divorce action in August 1991, seeking equitable distribution of marital property. The Supreme Court's initial distribution, which allocated approximately 62% of assets to the defendant and 38% to the plaintiff without explanation, was appealed by the plaintiff for equal division. The appellate court concurred, mandating equal division of net rental income and marital residence proceeds. Furthermore, recognizing the significant disparity in their retirement plans and the plaintiff's limited contribution period, the court ruled she was entitled to an equitable share of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff was also granted reimbursement for a $4,410 Workers' Compensation award confiscated by the defendant without proper offset proof. The judgment was modified and the matter remitted for property redistribution and consideration of counsel fees.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorceWorkers' CompensationPension DivisionRental IncomeSpousal SupportMarital AssetsReimbursementCounsel Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1989

Smith v. Smith

In this case, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially granted equitable distribution of State lottery winnings by allocating 85% to the defendant husband and 15% to the plaintiff wife. The parties were married in 1982, and the defendant won $13.5 million in the lottery in 1985 through a pool with co-workers. Although the wife regularly played the lottery, the husband rarely did. The court found the winnings to be marital property but awarded the wife only 15% based on the ticket being acquired solely through the husband's efforts. On appeal, the judgment was unanimously reversed, with the appellate court determining that a more equitable distribution would be an equal division of the lottery winnings, citing the parties' equal contributions to the marriage, their treatment of it as a partnership, and the fact that the winnings were their only significant asset.

Equitable DistributionLottery WinningsMarital PropertySpousal ContributionsDomestic Relations LawProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewMatrimonial AssetsFinancial AssetsDissolution of Marriage
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dash v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US

Kenneth Dash, a black employee, sued Equitable Life Assurance Society and Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp. for racial discrimination in employment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging unfair job evaluations, denied promotion, and retaliatory discharge. Defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The court, applying Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively, dismissed claims of discriminatory job evaluations, discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge under § 1981. However, the court denied the motion for summary judgment regarding the discriminatory denial of promotion claim, finding a question of fact as to whether the promotion to Team Leader constituted an opportunity for a "new and distinct" contractual relationship. The promotion claim will proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Promotion DenialRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionNew and Distinct Relation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goudreau v. Goudreau

This case details an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning the equitable distribution of marital property and the denial of maintenance in a divorce action. The parties, married in 1978, had two children. The plaintiff worked in the defendant's contracting business without pay before developing a work-related partial disability and receiving workers' compensation benefits. The defendant's primary income came from his contracting business, and the couple acquired three parcels of real property during their marriage. The Supreme Court granted a divorce, distributed assets, and denied maintenance to both parties. On appeal, the court affirmed the equitable distribution, deeming it fair. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of maintenance, remitting the case for a new trial on that issue. This reversal was based on the Supreme Court's failure to provide a reasoned analysis for its decision, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b), and concerns regarding the imputation of income to the plaintiff without adequately considering her partial disability or providing a factual basis for the calculation.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceSpousal SupportImputed IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vainchenker v. Vainchenker

The plaintiff husband appealed portions of a Supreme Court judgment concerning his divorce and ancillary relief. Key points of contention included the equitable distribution of his medical license, the maintenance awarded to his wife, and his contribution to their eldest child's college expenses. The appellate court affirmed that the husband's New York medical license constituted a marital asset, subject to equitable distribution due to his enhanced earning capacity from training during the marriage, and upheld the wife's share. However, the court found the maintenance award to the wife was an improvident exercise of discretion and deleted it, leading to a recalculation and increase in child support. Additionally, the judgment was modified to ensure child support payments would be credited towards college expenses when the eldest child resides away from home.

Equitable DistributionMarital AssetMedical LicenseMaintenanceChild SupportCollege ExpensesDivorceAppellate ReviewEnhanced Earning CapacityFamily Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1984

Pottala v. Pottala

The case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding the equitable distribution of marital property and a maintenance award. The parties, married for nine years, divorced due to the defendant's cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant contested the plaintiff's pension interest, the $110 weekly maintenance, and the accuracy of her net worth statement. The court upheld the net worth statement and affirmed the indefinite maintenance award, recognizing the plaintiff's self-sufficiency efforts despite limited earning potential. The judgment was modified to adjust maintenance arrears by crediting the defendant with a portion of cashed tax refund checks.

Equitable DistributionMaintenance AwardMarital PropertyPension RightsNet Worth StatementDivorce DecreeAppellate ReviewFinancial DisparitySpousal SupportCruel and Inhuman Treatment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnone v. Arnone

The parties married in 1980 and divorced after a prolonged action initiated in 1997. The Supreme Court's initial judgment distributed marital property, including the marital residence to the defendant, and allowed the plaintiff to retain his state pension. Defendant appealed the equitable distribution, challenging the classification of certain bank accounts as separate property and the denial of a share in the plaintiff's state pension. The appellate court upheld the separate property designations but found that the defendant was entitled to a 50% share of the plaintiff's state pension, modifying the judgment accordingly. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding maintenance and counsel fees, denying further awards to the defendant.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorce ProceedingsSpousal Pension RightsAppellate ReviewSeparate PropertyMaintenance AwardsCounsel FeesDisability BenefitsProperty Valuation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,383 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