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. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAllister v. Renu Industrial Tire Corp.

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt Construction Corp. v. Grand Palais, LLC

Holt Construction Corp. initiated an action against Grand Palais, LLC, Grand Palais Development, Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, and Howard Lepow, seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, set aside fraudulent conveyances, and recover damages for diversion of trust assets. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Holt on multiple causes of action. Defendants appealed, and Holt cross-appealed from portions of the judgment entered January 19, 2012. The appellate court dismissed certain appeals, modified the judgment by dismissing the seventh cause of action and portions of the twelfth and thirteenth causes of action related to Lien Law § 13 (5), and reversed the dismissal of claims against Howard Lepow for violations of Lien Law §§ 72 and 77, awarding judgment in favor of Holt against Lepow for $935,342.55. As modified, the judgment was affirmed with costs to the plaintiff.

Mechanic's LienFraudulent ConveyanceDiversion of Trust AssetsDebtor and Creditor LawLien LawAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationNonjury TrialCorporate Officer LiabilityConstruction Contract
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2014

Priestley v. Panmedix Inc.

Katherine Priestley, a judgment creditor of Panmedix, Inc., initiated a lawsuit to set aside a Security Agreement between Panmedix and a group of its creditors (Respondent Creditors) as a fraudulent conveyance under New York Debtor and Creditor Law. The Security Agreement, executed after Priestley's security interest expired, granted interests in Panmedix's assets to its insiders (officers, directors, shareholders, and their affiliates) and other creditors. The court found the agreement to be constructively fraudulent due to disproportionately small consideration (four months' forbearance) and actual fraud, evidenced by numerous "badges of fraud," including the close relationship between parties, the unusual nature of the transfer, and the transferor's awareness of Priestley's claim and inability to pay. The agreement preferentially treated a controlling group of shareholders and insiders to the detriment of Priestley. Consequently, the Court granted Priestley's motion for summary judgment and denied the respondents' motion, deeming the Security Agreement a fraudulent conveyance.

Fraudulent ConveyanceSummary JudgmentSecurity AgreementDebtor and Creditor LawNew York LawInsider TransactionsPreferential TreatmentUCC Financing StatementJudgment CreditorPanmedix Inc.
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04360 [151 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Thomas v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff, Michael P. Thomas, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education (DOE), Chancellor Farina, and Communications Workers of America District One (CWA), alleging fraudulent and wasteful acts related to CWA's use of public school property for a meeting. Thomas also accused the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) of fraudulently concealing these actions. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that CWA paid the customary fees for using the school premises, thus not constituting an illegal gift of money under the New York State Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that no cause of action under General Municipal Law § 51 existed because there was no fraud or entirely illegal purpose, and Thomas could not use a taxpayer action to correct technical irregularities. Finally, the Court concluded that Thomas failed to plead a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation against SCI due to lack of intent to deceive and insufficient specificity in his allegations.

Taxpayer ActionFraudulent MisrepresentationWasteful ActsPublic School Property UseGift of MoneyGeneral Municipal LawCPLR 3016(b) Pleading RequirementsAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSufficiency of Pleadings
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Battaglia v. Shore Parkway Owner LLC

Plaintiff Karen Battaglia sued Shore Parkway Owner LLC, United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc., and Regal Cinemas, Inc. for negligence after allegedly slipping and falling at a movie theater. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and arguing that Shore Parkway, a New York citizen like the plaintiff, was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. The court examined whether there was any possibility of recovery against Shore Parkway under New York law, particularly concerning the liability of out-of-possession landlords. Despite the lease placing maintenance responsibility on the tenant, Shore Parkway retained a right of re-entry to inspect or make repairs, which the court found could constitute sufficient control to impose liability if the injury stemmed from a significant structural or design defect. Applying a 'no possibility' standard for fraudulent joinder, the court concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate that Shore Parkway was fraudulently joined. Consequently, the federal court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings.

RemovalDiversity JurisdictionFraudulent JoinderOut-of-Possession LandlordNegligenceState CourtFederal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionRemandNew York Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wren

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Delaware County, where he was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and committing a fraudulent practice after pleading guilty. The charges stemmed from fraudulent work activity reports and illicitly receiving workers' compensation benefits. The defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was denied without a hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the County Court's decision, finding no error in denying the plea withdrawal and concluding that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, as the plea resulted in a significant reduction in potential consecutive prison sentences.

Criminal AppealGuilty Plea WithdrawalGrand LarcenyFraudulent PracticeWorkers' Compensation FraudEffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewPlea BargainConviction AffirmationJudicial Discretion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crotona 1967 Corp. v. Vidu Bros.

Plaintiff Crotona 1967 Corporation sought summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against Vidu Brother Corp. and a personal guaranty against Harshad Patel. Defendants argued fraudulent inducement regarding the real estate transaction and the temporary nature of Patel's guaranty. The court granted summary judgment against Vidu Brother Corp., finding their fraudulent inducement defense invalid due to a lack of reasonable reliance and specific contractual clauses. However, a genuine issue of material fact regarding the intended temporary duration of Patel's personal guaranty precluded summary judgment against him. The court denied attorney's fees without a hearing on reasonableness.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementPersonal GuarantyContract LawReal Estate TransactionStatute of FraudsDiversity JurisdictionCorporate LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 293 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