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 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Capital Bus. Credit LLC v. Tailgate Clothing Co., Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Plaintiff Orrin Anderson, a debtor, had his credit card debt with Credit One discharged in bankruptcy, but the debt remained on his credit report as 'charged off.' Anderson reopened his bankruptcy case and filed a class action complaint against Credit One for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. Credit One moved to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Bankruptcy Court denied. Credit One appealed the denial to compel arbitration as of right and sought leave to appeal the denials to strike class allegations and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied Credit One's motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction or interlocutory appeal for the additional issues.

Bankruptcy Discharge InjunctionClass Action WaiverSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPendent Appellate JurisdictionArbitration AgreementFederal Statutory ClaimsContempt PowerPunitive DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03249
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hudson Excess Ins. Co.

This declaratory judgment action addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from an underlying personal injury claim. Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Mayer Malbin Realty I, LLC sought defense and indemnity from Hudson Excess Insurance Company for an injury sustained by a worker at a construction site. Although aware of potential coverage in October 2017, plaintiffs did not tender notice to Hudson until May 2020. Hudson subsequently disclaimed coverage due to this significant delay. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing Hudson was not prejudiced by the late notice, which hindered Hudson's ability to conduct a timely investigation.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageLate NoticePrejudice DefenseAdditional InsuredSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ActionConstruction Site AccidentSubcontractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies

This declaratory judgment action addresses the hierarchy of excess insurance policies in a situation where one policy is primary for owned vehicles but excess for non-owned, and the second is an umbrella policy covering multiple risks. The case stems from an accident involving a rented van, which led to a $650,000 settlement. After the primary insurer paid $500,000, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Co. each contributed $75,000, pending a determination of their respective excess coverage obligations. The Supreme Court initially ruled for ratable contribution. However, citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, the appellate court reversed, holding that Northbrook's umbrella policy constitutes a final tier of coverage, not required to contribute ratably with Chubb's excess policy. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Northbrook, entitling it to a $75,000 reimbursement from Chubb.

Excess InsuranceUmbrella InsuranceDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeAutomobile Liability InsuranceNon-Owned VehicleRatable ContributionFinal Tier CoverageSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Arena v. Crown Asphalt Co.

Thomas Arena (decedent) sustained a work-related foot injury in 1980, leading to workers' compensation benefits and subsequent renal failure. Decedent and his wife (claimant) filed a third-party medical malpractice action against treating physicians and the hospital, which was settled in 1988 through a structured settlement. A stipulation between the carrier and decedent outlined the carrier's offset credit against decedent's workers' compensation claim and reserved rights against future death benefits claims, but claimant was not a signatory. After decedent's death in 1993, claimant filed for death benefits, prompting the carrier to seek an offset credit from the third-party settlement proceeds. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the carrier entitled to a credit, but later reversed itself, ruling against any credit. The appeals court determined that the carrier sufficiently preserved its offset rights through a general release signed by both claimant and decedent. However, it found no clear agreement on the specific offset amount in the stipulation or settlement that applied to claimant's death benefits. Consequently, the Board's decision of zero credit was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a factual determination of the precise credit amount.

Offset CreditThird-Party SettlementDeath Benefits ClaimRenal FailureMedical MalpracticeStipulation AgreementGeneral ReleaseWaiver of RightsStructured SettlementApportionment of Damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Selective Insurance Company of America v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, a group of insurance carriers, challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board’s refusal to issue them a credit or refund for assessments paid in excess of surcharges collected from their policyholders between 2001 and 2009. This discrepancy arose due to different methodologies used to calculate assessments (by the Board based on "total written premiums") and surcharges (by carriers based on "standard premiums"), resulting in some carriers collecting more in surcharges (windfall carriers) and others paying more in assessments (shortfall carriers), like the petitioners. In 2009, the Legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Law to align the assessment methodology with "standard premiums" and authorized the Board to collect excess funds from windfall carriers. The amendment also allowed the Board to issue credits or refunds for "overpayments made to the fund." Petitioners interpreted this as applicable to shortfall carriers, but the Board denied their request, contending "overpayments" referred only to those made by windfall carriers. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding its interpretation rational and consistent with the legislative intent, which was focused on deficit reduction and did not provide for relief to shortfall carriers.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance CarriersAssessments and SurchargesStatutory InterpretationCredit/RefundOverpaymentsShortfall CarriersWindfall CarriersAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2000

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.

Stephenson Equity Company (SECO), a plaintiff-intervenor, moved to compel non-party Swiss American Securities Inc. (SASI) to produce documents related to a pooled omnibus account held by Credit Suisse (Zurich) at SASI, believing these documents would identify beneficial owners, specifically Credit Bancorp. SASI opposed, arguing it lacked control over such specific information as broker-dealer regulations do not mandate identifying ultimate beneficial owners in pooled corporate accounts, and also referencing Swiss bank privacy laws. The court ultimately denied SECO's motion, concluding that SECO failed to demonstrate that SASI had the requisite control or access to the Credit Bancorp-specific documents in the ordinary course of business.

Discovery motionMotion to compelRule 45 FRCPSubpoena duces tecumBroker-dealer regulationsOmnibus accountsBeneficial ownershipCorporate controlSister corporationsSecurities law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jarovic v. Icon Restoration & Contracting

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's workers' compensation carrier's credit against a claimant's third-party settlement. The Board's initial ruling, which granted the carrier full credit, was deemed inconsistent with the principles established in *Matter of Stenson v New York State Dept. of Transp.* The current court found that the Board incorrectly asserted it lacked authority to address the manner of credit and failed to consider the carrier's contribution to litigation costs. Citing a shift in the Board's approach following *Stenson*, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is reversed. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's guidance.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementCreditLitigation CostsAppellate ReviewRemittalStenson PrecedentBoard AuthorityNew York StateWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00527 [224 AD3d 1254]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2024

Kelly v. Prohaska

This personal injury action arises from a motor vehicle accident where John M. Moudy was struck by a van operated by Nicholas J. Prohaska, a franchisee, and owned/leased by Snap-on Credit LLC. The Supreme Court initially granted Snap-on Credit's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion regarding the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106). The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that Snap-on Credit failed to establish it was

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentGraves AmendmentVicarious LiabilityLeased VehiclesFranchisee LiabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,421 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