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. 79 Civ. 5379
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1980

Ninth Fed. Sav. & L. v. First Fed. Sav. & L.

This action arises from an agreement between Ninth Federal Savings and Loan Association of New York City and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Gadsden County for the purchase of treasury securities. Ninth Federal alleged that First Federal's Controller, Henry Burnett, did not intend to honor the agreement if market conditions were unfavorable, stating a claim under the Securities and Exchange Act. The court addresses First Federal's challenge to personal jurisdiction over pendent state law breach of contract claims and Burnett's motion to transfer the case. The court affirms its jurisdiction over the state claims based on pendent jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for convenience.

Securities FraudBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to TransferForum Non ConveniensExtraterritorial ServiceSecurities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Long Arm Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FSI Group v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Plaintiff FSI, a New York limited partnership, filed a complaint against defendant First Federal Savings and Loan Association, based in South Dakota, alleging repudiation and breach of a standby agreement to purchase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) securities. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, denied the defendant's motion, finding that personal jurisdiction was established under New York CPLR § 301 and § 302(a)(1) due to the defendant's purposeful business transactions within New York through agents. Furthermore, the court determined that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, considering the limited partnership's principal place of business as its residence for venue purposes, distinct from its individual partners.

Personal JurisdictionImproper VenueLimited PartnershipBreach of ContractStandby AgreementGNMA SecuritiesMinimum ContactsDue ProcessAgent ActivityPurposeful Availment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Mauro brought an action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and several other defendants, including her investment advisor Peter J. Dawson and the Kaplan defendants (attorneys for Countrywide), alleging federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and various state law claims. Mauro claimed that the proceeds from two mortgage loans, secured by her investment rental properties, were misappropriated by Dawson. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that TILA was inapplicable because the loans were for business purposes and that the Kaplan defendants were not 'creditors' under the statute. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the TILA claim, concluding that the loans were indeed for business purposes, thus exempting them from TILA's coverage. The court also found that the Kaplan defendants did not qualify as 'creditors' under TILA. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Truth in Lending ActTILA ExemptionBusiness PurposeInvestment PropertySummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMortgage FraudCreditor Definition
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. County Bank

Patricia Hayes initiated a class action challenging the arbitration clause in loan documents provided by a federally-insured bank, seeking to declare it void. The Supreme Court, Queens County, compelled arbitration and stayed the action, a decision Hayes appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not bar the appeal and that the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable. The court found no procedural unconscionability by Hayes and reiterated that precluding class actions does not inherently make agreements unconscionable. It also determined that the legality of the underlying loan agreements falls within the arbitrator's purview.

Arbitration AgreementClass Action WaiverLoan DocumentsUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration Act PreemptionAppellate ReviewContract ValidityState Procedural RulesArbitrator's JurisdictionConsumer Loans
References
29
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02113
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Piccirilli v. Benjamin

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment and an appeal from an order related to a personal loan and consulting agreement between Luciano Piccirilli (plaintiff) and Ronald R. Benjamin (defendant), an attorney. Defendant secured a $200,000 loan from plaintiff with a 15% interest rate, and a separate $15,000 consulting agreement. Defendant failed to make payments. A jury found that defendant intended to defraud plaintiff and that the loan was usurious. Supreme Court awarded plaintiff $200,000 (principal) with 9% interest from the verdict date, denying full interest due to usury but acknowledging the fraud. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for both fraud and usury, and dismissed the appeal from the order, agreeing with the Supreme Court's equitable decision to award only the principal due to the dual fault of both parties.

Fraudulent InducementUsuryPromissory NoteLoan AgreementBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefJury VerdictAppellate ReviewAttorney EthicsInterest Rate
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garthon Business Inc. v. Stein

The dissenting opinion concerns a dispute over arbitrability stemming from multiple consulting and loan agreements between plaintiffs (affiliated with the Chodiev family, including Patokh Chodiev) and defendants (Kirill Ace Stein and Aurdeley Enterprises Limited). The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation related to $16 million in loans. Various agreements contained conflicting forum selection clauses, some favoring US courts, others English courts, and later ones mandating London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules. Justice Gische argues that the question of who decides the proper forum—the court or the arbitrators—is a gateway issue that, given the specific arbitration clauses incorporating LCIA rules (which empower arbitrators to rule on their own jurisdiction), should be determined by the arbitrators. The dissent contends the majority overstepped by interpreting the agreements' applicability to prior disputes.

ArbitrationArbitrabilityForum SelectionContract DisputeBreach of ContractFraudNegligent MisrepresentationConsulting AgreementLondon Court of International ArbitrationLCIA Rules
References
7
Case No. 7053 (VLB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1992

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Spark Tarrytown, Inc.

District Judge Broderick's memorandum explains the decision to grant an ex-parte order for the appointment of a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure case initiated by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC). The judge justified the extraordinary remedy by citing the defendants' inability to be located, the imminent collection of rents, and a history of non-payment despite repeated requests. The decision emphasizes stringent due process requirements for ex-parte relief, referencing Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents on pre-deprivation notice. The accompanying order formally appoints Jerry Waxenberg as Receiver, detailing his comprehensive powers and duties for property management, rent collection, and compliance with legal requirements in Westchester County.

Ex-parteReceivershipMortgage ForeclosureDue ProcessProperty RightsNotice RequirementsDefaultRent CollectionProperty ManagementJudicial Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 2,366 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