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
May 13, 2004

Boss v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, former financial advisors, initiated legal action in New York against their former employers, alleging violations of Labor Law concerning impermissible salary deductions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing employment agreements that stipulated Minnesota as the forum for dispute resolution and governing law. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, a decision later upheld despite plaintiffs' reargument that they were time-barred from suing in Minnesota. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing the enforceability of choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses unless they are unreasonable, unjust, or contravene fundamental public policy, neither of which was found applicable in this case. It clarified that differing state laws or a shorter statute of limitations in the chosen forum do not, by themselves, invalidate such contractual agreements.

Choice of LawForum Selection ClauseEmployment LawWage DeductionsStatute of LimitationsPublic PolicyContract EnforcementAppellate ReviewMinnesota LawNew York Labor Law
References
7
Case No. 657034/2017
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2018

NSB Advisors, LLC v. C.L. King & Assoc., Inc.

Petitioner NSB Advisors, LLC sought to confirm a FINRA arbitration award against Respondent C.L. King & Associates, Inc., stemming from financial losses in 2011-2012. CL King cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Charles E. Ramos, reviewed the case under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), noting the extremely limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award. The court found CL King's arguments to be speculative and insufficient, and its failure to provide a complete arbitration record detrimental to its claim. Consequently, the court granted NSB's motion to confirm the award and denied CL King's cross-motion to vacate.

Arbitration AwardFINRAFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawVacaturConfirmationBreach of ContractFinancial LossesInvestment AdvisorBroker-Dealer
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker

Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. filed a Petition to Dismiss or Stay arbitration proceedings and compel individual arbitration against former financial advisors Reagan Tucker, Benjamin Dooley, and Marvin Glasgold. The advisors had initiated arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) for class-wide and collective claims of unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The central issue was whether the availability of class arbitration should be decided by the court or the arbitrator, given a broad arbitration clause in the employment agreements. The court, citing Second Circuit precedent and sister district courts, ruled that the arbitrator, not the court, should determine the availability of class or collective arbitration. Additionally, the court denied Wells Fargo's argument for dismissal based on the 'first-filed' rule, concluding that the referenced 'Williams Action' was not substantially similar.

Arbitration AgreementClass ArbitrationCollective ActionFair Labor Standards ActFLSA OvertimeNew York Labor LawNYLL OvertimeArbitrabilityGateway IssueContract Interpretation
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1997

First Interregional Advisors Corp. v. Wolff

First Interregional Advisors Corp. (FIAC), a financial firm, sued Emanuel Wolff and other defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), alleging a complex scheme of mail and wire fraud. FIAC claimed the defendants defrauded them of nearly $2.2 million through misrepresentations regarding the financial health of Capital Information Company (CIC) and the collectibility of its accounts receivable. The court denied the motion to dismiss for defendants Emanuel Wolff, CIC, Mark Karasick, and Thomas Tyndall, finding sufficient allegations of racketeering activity and a pattern of fraud. However, the motion to dismiss was granted for several other named Wolff Defendants due to insufficient allegations. Additionally, the court denied a motion by the Wolff Defendants to disqualify FIAC's counsel, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudMotion to DismissPleading RequirementsRule 9(b) FRCPRacketeering ActivityCriminal EnterpriseConspiracyProximate Cause
References
27
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Case No. 653709/2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v. SDI, Inc.

This case involves a dispute arising from an April 28, 2011 transaction where Plaintiffs (Sellers) sold shares in Project Eagle to Defendant SDI, Inc. (Purchaser). SDI claims Sellers breached representations and warranties in the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), while Sellers contend SDI breached the Escrow Agreement by submitting an invalid claim notice and retaining escrowed funds. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs also sought dismissal on spoliation grounds. The court partially granted and partially denied Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, dismissing SDI's claims regarding Taxes and temporary workers, but denying dismissal for Financial Statements and Suppliers/Customers. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the Sellers' Representative's claim for breach of the Escrow Agreement. Finally, Plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions was denied due to a lack of demonstrated control over non-party entities.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentEscrow AgreementSpoliation of EvidenceStock Purchase AgreementCorporate AcquisitionIndemnification ClaimDue DiligenceFinancial StatementsSuppliers and Customers
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henneberry v. ING Capital Advisors

Virginia Henneberry was terminated from her employment with ING Furman Selz Asset Management, LLC and ING Capital Advisors, LLC. She initiated arbitration, challenging the burden of proof and arguing arbitrator misconduct after the arbitrator reversed his initial ruling on the burden of proof. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division upheld the arbitration award. This court affirmed those decisions, finding that the arbitrator's procedural error in shifting the burden of proof did not deprive Henneberry of a fundamentally fair arbitration or exceed his authority, especially since he concluded the employer would have prevailed regardless of who bore the burden.

ArbitrationEmployment AgreementTerminationBurden of ProofArbitrator MisconductDue ProcessFundamental FairnessCPLR 7511Judicial ReviewAppellate Practice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 518 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