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

Kology v. My Space NYC Corp.

Dena Kology sued My Space NYC Corp. and Guy Hochman for employment discrimination under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing My Space was not Kology's employer, thus precluding liability under employment discrimination statutes. The court re-construed the motion as one for summary judgment due to submitted affidavits. The core issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed, especially given Kology's compensation through her corporation, Atlantis. The court found that despite the corporate arrangement, My Space exercised sufficient control over Kology to be considered her employer or joint employer and subsequently denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJoint EmployerCorporate VeilAgency relationship

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Chassman v. People Resources

The plaintiff sought the return of $1,850 paid to People Resources, a self-described 'organization for singles,' alleging the contract was void under General Business Law § 394-c, procured by fraud, and for lack of services. Defendant argued the law was inapplicable and that arbitration was mandated by the contract. The court determined that People Resources operates as a 'social referral service' under the broad interpretation of General Business Law § 394-c, despite its claim of merely providing a 'forum.' The contract was found to violate several statutory provisions, including charging excessive fees and lacking mandatory cancellation options, rendering it void and unenforceable due to its public policy implications. Consequently, the arbitration clause within the void contract was also deemed unenforceable, leading the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the defendant's.

Social Referral ServiceContract VoidabilitySummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseConsumer Protection LawGeneral Business LawUnenforceable ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationDating ServicesLegislative Intent

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05472 [187 AD3d 452]

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 06, 2020

Richards v. Security Resources

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendant Security Resources' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff Alroy Richards' cross-motions. The court found that Security Resources timely moved to dismiss and that the plaintiff's denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation were dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. Negligence claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, and the individual defendant, Joseph Katanga, was found not to have been properly served, rendering discovery motions moot.

Dismissal of complaintMotion to dismissService of processAffidavit of serviceWrongful dischargeAt-will employmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressDefamationQualified privilegeNegligence claims

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03892 [185 AD3d 780]

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 15, 2020

Croshier v. New Horizons Resources, Inc.

The plaintiff, Shelly Croshier, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after allegedly falling on the driveway of a group home owned and operated by the defendant, New Horizons Resources, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, lacked constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, or that the condition was trivial. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeTrivial DefectPersonal InjuryFall AccidentDriveway SafetyAppellate ReviewDuty of Care

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 05, 2000

Pain Resource Center v. Travelers Insurance

This case addresses a dispute regarding the payment of first-party no-fault benefits to a health provider, Pain Resource Center, as the assignee of John Hiotis, who was injured in an auto accident. The defendant, Travelers Ins. Co., challenged the validity of the assignment and the necessity of the medical services provided. The court affirmed the validity of the assignment under New York's Insurance Law and related regulations. However, based on conflicting expert testimonies, the court limited the compensable medical services to six hours and awarded the plaintiff $566.10, along with statutory interest and attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. 95 Civ. 5106(AGS)(SEG)

Regular Panel Decision

Envirosource, Inc. v. Horsehead Resource Development Co.

The United States Magistrate Judge Grubin issued an opinion concerning Envirosource, Inc.'s application for sanctions against Horsehead Resource Development Co. due to the latter's persistent failure to complete document production. The defendant's continuous non-compliance with discovery orders resulted in significant delays and increased expenses for the plaintiff. The court firmly rejected all of the defendant's arguments against the imposition of sanctions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of awarding attorney's fees under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After a thorough review of the plaintiff's billing documentation, and implementing reductions for insufficient attorney experience details and excessive claimed hours, the court ultimately awarded Envirosource, Inc. $84,950.70 in attorney's fees.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAttorney FeesDocument ProductionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCourt OrdersNon-complianceBad FaithMagistrate JudgeFee Calculation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiff, Bristol County Retirement System, initiated a putative securities class action against European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (EADS) and its executives. The lawsuit alleged that EADS misled investors about production delays concerning the Airbus A380 aircraft, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the alleged fraudulent activities and their impact were predominantly European. It was determined that the connections to the United States were insufficient to meet either the 'conduct test' or the 'effects test' for the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws. The court also observed that France, Germany, and the Netherlands provided adequate alternative forums for the claims.

Securities FraudClass ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationConduct TestEffects TestForum Non ConveniensAirbus A380EADSForeign Securities

References

Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244

Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion

References

Showing 1-10 of 380 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Kology v. My Space NYC Corp.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJoint EmployerCorporate VeilAgency relationship

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Chassman v. People Resources

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05472 [187 AD3d 452]

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 06, 2020

Richards v. Security Resources

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03892 [185 AD3d 780]

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 15, 2020

Croshier v. New Horizons Resources, Inc.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeTrivial DefectPersonal InjuryFall AccidentDriveway SafetyAppellate ReviewDuty of Care

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 05, 2000

Pain Resource Center v. Travelers Insurance

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. 95 Civ. 5106(AGS)(SEG)

Regular Panel Decision

Envirosource, Inc. v. Horsehead Resource Development Co.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAttorney FeesDocument ProductionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCourt OrdersNon-complianceBad FaithMagistrate JudgeFee Calculation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. Securities Litigation

Securities FraudClass ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationConduct TestEffects TestForum Non ConveniensAirbus A380EADSForeign Securities

References

Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244

Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion

References

Showing 1-10 of 380 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.