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

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobs v. Cohen

This case involves an action by the president of the Protective Coat Tailors and Pressers’ Union, Local No. 55, against Morris Cohen, Louis Cohen (comprising M. Cohen & Son), and Samuel Nelson, concerning a promissory note. The note was collateral for an agreement compelling the firm to exclusively employ union members and discharge non-members. The court deemed this agreement unlawful and contrary to public policy, referencing *Curran v. Galen* and distinguishing it from *National Protective Assn. v. Cumming*. The decision reversed an interlocutory judgment and overruled a demurrer, validating the defense that the promissory note secured an illegal covenant.

Labor Union ContractPublic PolicyUnlawful AgreementPromissory NoteRestraint of TradeFreedom of EmploymentMonopolyCoercionDemurrerAppeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalish & Rice, Inc. v. Regent Air Corp.

Kalish & Rice, Inc. (K&R), an advertising and marketing firm, sought summary judgment against Regent Air Corporation (Regent) for $260,000 owed for services. Regent sent an unsecured promissory note for this amount, which K&R retained for 63 days before explicitly rejecting it. Regent contended that K&R's retention constituted acceptance, thus suspending the underlying obligation under Uniform Commercial Code Section 3-802. However, the court, applying Pennsylvania common law of contracts, ruled that silence is not considered acceptance unless specific circumstances create a duty to respond, which were not present here. Since K&R did not accept the note, UCC Section 3-802 was inapplicable. Consequently, K&R was granted summary judgment.

Contract LawSummary JudgmentPromissory NoteOffer and AcceptanceUniform Commercial CodeChoice of LawDiversity JurisdictionPennsylvania LawAdvertising ServicesDebt Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KB Dissolution Corp. v. GREAT AMERICAN OPPORTUNITIES, INC.

This case addresses KBI's application to file a second amended complaint, which GAO resisted. KBI's initial claims on a promissory note were dismissed as premature due to GAO's pending counterclaims. The Court determined it had jurisdiction, despite GAO's appeal, because the appeal was from a non-final decision. The Court further found that GAO's counterclaims had reached a 'Final Resolution' according to the Asset Purchase Agreement, making KBI's claims no longer premature. Consequently, the Court granted KBI's application in part, vacating the prior dismissal of KBI's first, second, and fourth claims for relief, and denied it in all other respects.

Promissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementBreach of ContractCounterclaimsJurisdictionAppealFinal ResolutionPrematurity of ClaimsVacated DismissalLeave to Amend
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ripley v. Mulroy

Plaintiff Thomas Ripley sued Thomas J. Mulroy and Rockville Travel, Inc. for fraud concerning promissory notes issued by Faith Tours, Inc., which subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, invoking the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362). The court denied the motion, clarifying that the automatic stay applies only to the debtor (Faith Tours) and not to co-defendants. The court also raised concerns about subject matter jurisdiction over Rockville Travel, Inc., due to the apparent lack of a federal claim against it, and ordered further briefing on the issue.

Bankruptcy StayFraudPromissory NotesSecurities ActRICOPendent JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal QuestionDebtor and Creditor LawCorporate Fraud
References
3
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

All Terrain Properties, Inc. v. Hoy

This case concerns plaintiff All Terrain Properties' attempt to domesticate a New Jersey default judgment against defendant Robert J. Hoy in New York. Hoy had personally guaranteed corporate promissory notes, leading to the default judgment. Following a corporate bankruptcy reorganization, a provision (the "Hoy Clause") in the plan stayed enforcement of the judgment. The New York Supreme Court denied domestication and dismissed the complaint, citing invalid service. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Hoy was judicially estopped from challenging the New Jersey court's personal jurisdiction due to his active involvement in, and benefits derived from, the bankruptcy proceedings that implicitly affirmed the judgment's validity. The court reinstated the complaint and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Judicial EstoppelCollateral EstoppelIn Personam JurisdictionDefault JudgmentDomestication of Foreign JudgmentBankruptcy Reorganization PlanPersonal GuaranteeService of ProcessFull Faith and CreditAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathon v. Feldstein

Henry W. Mathon, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit alleging RICO violations, extortion, and employment discrimination against various defendants, including Neil Feldstein, Arthur Salm, and affiliated entities. Mathon claimed he was forced to sign a promissory note and subsequently fired, leading to further threats during a state court collection action. District Judge Spatt granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims, finding Mathon failed to plead mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion with sufficient particularity under RICO, and lacked specific facts for employment discrimination. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims but allowed Mathon thirty days to file a second amended complaint to address the pleading deficiencies.

RICOExtortionEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissFailure to State a ClaimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRacketeering ActivityMail FraudWire FraudPromissory Note
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Berkman

This case concerns an action brought by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America against a manufacturer for $500, based on a promissory note intended as security for the defendant's adherence to a labor agreement. The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached the agreement by sending work to a contractor without written approval. The Municipal Court found that the plaintiff had waived the written consent requirement through non-enforcement. Furthermore, the court determined that the $500 stipulated as liquidated damages in the agreement constituted an unenforceable penalty, as the contract contained numerous covenants of varying importance where damages for breach were readily ascertainable. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed on the merits. The defendant's counterclaim for a $500 payment from a previous, similar agreement was also dismissed, as the court found the claim was waived by entering into the new agreement.

Promissory NoteLiquidated DamagesPenalty ClauseContract BreachWaiver of ContractLabor AgreementUnincorporated AssociationEmployer ObligationsNon-Union WorkCounterclaim Dismissed
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,061 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