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
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Bank of New York (In Re Goldman)

Cecilia R. Goldman, a Chapter 7 debtor, sought to discharge her student loan obligation from The Bank of New York, guaranteed by NYSHESC, claiming undue hardship due to health issues and related medical expenses. NYSHESC objected, stating that the five-year repayment period had not elapsed and that repayment would not cause undue hardship. The court determined that despite her medical condition, Goldman was employed with a $17,000 annual salary, was single, had no dependents, and had discharged over $13,000 in other debts. The court concluded that Goldman failed to prove the 'hopelessness or exceptional circumstances' necessary for an undue hardship finding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), and consequently, her complaint was dismissed.

Student LoanBankruptcyUndue HardshipChapter 7DischargeabilityMedical ConditionFinancial HardshipGuaranteed LoanFederal Bankruptcy CodeDebtor-Creditor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Panek

Theodore (Ted) Panek's will, which bequeathed a significant portion of his estate to the proponent, was challenged by eight objectants on grounds of undue influence. A jury in Surrogate’s Court found that while Ted had testamentary capacity, he was subjected to undue influence by the proponent, leading to the denial of probate. On appeal, the court affirmed the Surrogate’s decree. The appellate court found ample circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding, noting the proponent's financial motive, her control over Ted's environment and finances, his fragile health, and her active efforts to isolate him and pressure him into making the will against his prior resistance.

Will ContestUndue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityProbate LawEstate AdministrationAppellate ReviewSurrogate's CourtCircumstantial EvidenceFiduciary RelationshipElder Abuse
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1997

Host Marriott Corp. v. North

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action for contractual indemnification and common-law contribution. The denial was based on a contract providing for mutual indemnification between the parties. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to inform the plaintiff of a potential Workers' Compensation defense in an underlying action. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a motion to amend the answer to assert this defense would have been untimely. It emphasized that both Federal and State practice require leave to amend pleadings to be freely given in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice.

indemnificationcontributionworkers' compensation lawfederal rules of civil procedurestate practiceleave to amendmotion to dismissunderlying actionmutual indemnificationuntimely defense
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schweizer Aircraft Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Executive Law § 296 (10)(c), which prohibits employment discrimination based on sabbath observance unless it causes undue economic hardship to the employer. James Amrhein, a Seventh Day Adventist, was denied a machine operator position at Schweizer Aircraft Corporation because he could not work Friday evenings. The employer claimed accommodation was unworkable without attempting to contact other employees or the union. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Human Rights Appeal Board's determination that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving undue economic hardship, as it did not make a good faith effort to accommodate Amrhein's religious practice before denying employment.

DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceReligious AccommodationExecutive LawUndue Economic HardshipCollective Bargaining AgreementBurden of ProofShift ExchangeGood Faith EffortEmployment Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

In Re the Estate of Cameron

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tioga County concerning the probate of William G. Cameron's will. The decedent, while hospitalized, executed a will leaving his estate to his wife, the petitioner. One of his sons, the respondent, filed objections, alleging the will was not duly executed, decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner established a prima facie case for probate and the respondent failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding due execution, testamentary capacity, fraud, or undue influence.

Will ProbateTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceFraudSummary JudgmentAppealSurrogate's CourtAttesting WitnessesDue ExecutionDecedent's Estate
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of DelGatto

Christopher Fasulo, administrator c.t.a. of Pauline DelGatto’s estate, appealed a Surrogate’s Court decree in Kings County, which, upon a jury verdict, favored Nora Bradley regarding the title to real property. The decedent, Pauline DelGatto, had executed a trust document and deed conveying her house to Nora Bradley just weeks before her death, with Bradley as trustee and beneficiary. Fasulo alleged the decedent lacked mental capacity and was subjected to undue influence. The jury found that Fasulo failed to sustain his burden of proof on both claims. The appellate court affirmed the decree, ruling that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof for lack of mental competence or undue influence, especially since the transaction was supervised by an attorney and the circumstances were explained.

Estate lawreal propertyundue influencemental capacityburden of proofjury verdicttrust instrumentdeedattorney-client privilegeSCPA 2103
References
25
Case No. 1:08-CV-0164
Regular Panel Decision

Ruggles v. WellPoint, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including named individuals Fay Ruggles, Maurice Billman, Karen Hawkins, Harriet Childress, and Nancy Coleman, initiated a collective action against Wellpoint, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to incorporate additional class action claims under California and Illinois state laws and requested approval for ten consent forms filed after the court-imposed deadline. Defendant Wellpoint opposed both motions, citing undue delay and potential prejudice. The United States Magistrate Judge granted both motions, finding no bad faith or significant undue prejudice to the defendant, and emphasized judicial economy in consolidating related state law claims and allowing the late opt-ins.

FLSAOvertime CompensationWage and HourCollective ActionClass Action CertificationMotion PracticePleadings AmendmentJudicial DiscretionPrejudice AnalysisEquitable Tolling
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. Kaladjian

Plaintiffs, a group of New York City residents, brought a class action challenging the City and State's administration of the Home Energy Assistance Program (E-HEAP). This Memorandum and Order addresses the plaintiffs' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from a March 27, 2007 summary judgment order, arguing that defendants continued to fail in providing E-HEAP notice and properly labeling eligible households. District Judge Joseph F. Bianco denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs did not present "highly convincing" evidence to warrant relief. The Court further concluded that plaintiffs delayed unreasonably in filing and that granting relief would cause undue hardship to the defendants. Ultimately, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship to themselves, thus warranting the denial of their motion.

Class ActionRule 60(b)(6) MotionSummary JudgmentHome Energy Assistance ProgramE-HEAPPublic AssistanceDue ProcessNotice RequirementsMislabelingRepayable Loans
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 123 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