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. 79-CV-53
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Davis Acoustical Corp.

This action stems from a civil contempt proceeding against the defendants for violating the overtime pay and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), originally enjoined by a 1979 Consent Judgment. A special master was appointed to investigate the alleged violations, determine employee status, calculate back wages, and address prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The special master found a pattern of FLSA violations, concluded that individuals classified as 'independent contractors' were in fact 'employees' under the FLSA, and recommended a fine of $1,318,648.93, plus simple prejudgment interest. The court reviewed numerous objections from both the defendants and the plaintiff, ultimately upholding the special master's findings regarding the violations, employee classification, the admission of evidence, damages for unidentified employees, and the award of prejudgment interest. The court also affirmed the special master's refusal to compound interest daily or award attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and confirmed the authority to order payment schedules. Consequently, the court accepted the special master's report in its entirety and ordered the defendants to pay the specified fine and prejudgment interest.

FLSA violationsovertime payrecord-keeping violationscivil contemptspecial masterback wagesprejudgment interestindependent contractor statusemployee misclassificationcompensatory fines
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In re Nemko, Inc.)

Plaintiff The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase) filed an adversary proceeding against Defendant United Jersey Bank (UJB, later Summit Bank) and Nemko, Inc. concerning the priority of security interests in Nemko's accounts receivable. An initial court order awarded UJB priority, leading Nemko to pay UJB $649,256. This decision was later vacated by the District Court, which remanded the case to determine if Nemko's chief executive office had transferred from New Jersey to New York. The court found that Nemko's office had indeed moved, causing UJB's (Summit's) security interest to lapse due to a failure to file in New York. Chase was subsequently granted judgment on the principal amount, with the issue of prejudgment interest reserved. Following further appeals and a settlement where Summit paid the principal to Chase, Chase filed the instant motion for summary judgment to determine its entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period Summit held the funds. The court granted Chase's motion, concluding that under New York C.P.L.R. § 5001(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), an award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% was equitable to compensate Chase for the loss of use of the funds.

Prejudgment InterestSummary JudgmentSecurity InterestAccounts ReceivableUniform Commercial CodeBankruptcyChapter 11Lien PriorityChief Executive Office TransferCash Collateral
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nu-Life Construction Corp. v. Board of Education

This civil case, brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, involved a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Nu-Life Construction Corp. against defendants John Trapanotto and Stanley Dobrowolski. Additionally, the Board of Education of the City of New York won its breach of contract counterclaim against Terminate Control Corp. Post-verdict, motions were filed for prejudgment interest on both Nu-Life's RICO award and the Board's counterclaim. The Court denied Nu-Life's motion, reasoning that RICO's treble damages provision already provides sufficient compensation and that adding prejudgment interest would result in overcompensation. However, the Court granted the Board's motion for prejudgment interest on its counterclaim, applying New York's CPLR §§ 5001(a) and 5004, and set the interest rate at nine percent per annum from August 31, 1985.

RICOPrejudgment InterestTreble DamagesCounterclaimBreach of ContractFederal LawCivil ProcedureDamagesCompensationPunitive Damages
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Greenberg v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a mechanical maintainer for the New York City Transit Authority, sustained work-related knee injuries in 1987 and 1994, leading to his termination. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliation for seeking workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found in his favor, ordering reinstatement and damages, including prejudgment interest. The employer appealed the prejudgment interest award, and the claimant sought additional counsel fees from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board rescinded the prejudgment interest and denied the counsel fees request, a decision affirmed on appeal based on Workers' Compensation Law provisions and the claimant's procedural missteps regarding fee requests.

Workers' CompensationPrejudgment InterestCounsel FeesDiscriminationRetaliationStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer LiabilityJudicial Discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connor v. Ulrich

Harold J. Connor ("Connor") filed a Section 1983 action against Nassau County, Officer Henry A. Ulrich, and Sergeant John O’Keefe, alleging constitutional violations and state law claims. A jury found in favor of Connor on his excessive force claim against Ulrich, awarding him over $210,000 in damages. Connor sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and an amendment to the judgment for prejudgment interest. The Court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, granted Connor's application for attorney's fees, albeit at reduced hourly rates and with a 10% lodestar reduction due to partial success. The Court also granted prejudgment interest on $43,000 for past medical expenses and lost earnings, but denied expert witness fees and prejudgment interest on non-economic damages.

Section 1983Excessive ForceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestCivil RightsPolice MisconductDamagesCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesLodestar Method
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to resettle a prior decision from April 5, 1993, seeking to substitute Marla Strow for the deceased defendant Jerome Strow and to include prejudgment interest in the judgment. The court denied the substitution motion without prejudice, directing an application to the Surrogate's Court and then a motion in the Supreme Court. However, the branch of the motion concerning prejudgment interest was granted, leading to the recall and vacation of the original April 5, 1993 decision, and the substitution of the present decision and order. In this new decision, the appeal against Jerome Strow was dismissed, and the order pertaining to him was vacated because he died before the summary judgment motion was decided. Conversely, the court reversed the prior order concerning defendants Strab Construction Corp. and Gary Rabinowitz, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for $1,205,000, and remitting the case for the calculation of prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

Promissory NotesSummary JudgmentPrejudgment InterestSubstitution of PartiesDeceased DefendantStatute of FraudsOral AgreementAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodick v. City of Schenectady

The plaintiff moved for modification of a jury award from October 21, 1993, seeking prejudgment interest on various damage categories. The defendants sought judgment as a matter of law, remittitur, or a new trial regarding the damages awarded for malicious prosecution. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest, citing CPLR § 5001, but granted postjudgment interest at a rate of 4.55% per annum from April 13, 1992, according to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The court upheld the jury's awards for lost income and expenses in defending criminal prosecutions. However, the court found the award for injury to reputation, inconvenience, anguish, humiliation, and loss of liberty to be excessive, and consequently, lowered these awards.

Malicious ProsecutionJury Award ModificationPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestRemittiturLost Income DamagesReputation DamageLoss of LibertyCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. No. Civ. 8405(CM)(JCF)
Regular Panel Decision

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance

Plaintiffs Jonathan Berck and Martin Fleisher sued Phoenix Life Insurance Company for breach of contract regarding "premium-adjustable, universal life" (PAUL) insurance policies. Berck, a trustee, alleged two breaches by Phoenix: an improper 2010 cost of insurance (COI) rate increase and a concurrent interest rate decrease. Berck claimed the COI increase, based on impermissible factors and non-uniform application, forced him to invest an additional $700,000 to avoid higher charges, incurring a $35,000 sales fee. Phoenix moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Berck lacked standing and that Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction was lost post-class decertification, and for partial summary judgment on anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest. The court denied both motions, affirming Berck's standing due to economic harm and maintaining CAFA jurisdiction based on initial class allegations. The court also denied summary judgment regarding anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest as premature, allowing the case to proceed.

Breach of contractInsurance policiesUniversal life insuranceCost of insurance ratesInterest rate decreaseSubject matter jurisdictionStandingClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Motion to dismissMotion for partial summary judgment
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,476 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