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

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold v. Intersoft Corp.

Plaintiff Gold initiated an action for declaratory judgment and libel against defendant Alkoff, his attorneys, and Intersoft Corp. The libel claim stemmed from a letter sent by Alkoff's attorney to Intersoft's board, accusing Gold of misrepresentations, conflicting interests, and breaches of fiduciary duty, anticipating a future derivative action. The defendants moved to dismiss the libel claims, asserting that the communication was protected by absolute privilege, being preliminary to judicial proceedings. The court examined the scope of absolute privilege under New York law, contrasting it with the broader Restatement of Torts. It concluded that the March 13 letter was not pertinent to any currently pending litigation and, despite its potential as a prerequisite for a future lawsuit, did not warrant absolute privilege under New York's restrictive interpretation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the libel cause of action was denied.

DefamationLibelAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeShareholder Derivative ActionBusiness Corporation LawFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Smalls

The petitioner sought an order under CPLR 3102 (c) to compel Maritime Overseas Corporation (MOC) to disclose the identities of employees who reported her alleged illegal drug use on company premises, leading to her termination. MOC argued against disclosure, claiming the employees' statements were protected by qualified privilege and that the petitioner failed to prove actual malice as required. MOC also posited an absolute privilege based on public policy against workplace drug use. The court, however, found no evidence that the statements were made in good faith, noting a lack of verification efforts. Consequently, the claim of qualified privilege was rejected. Additionally, the court denied the absolute privilege argument, citing public policy concerns about encouraging baseless accusations and the potential harm to innocent employees. The court granted the petitioner's request for preaction disclosure.

Preaction DisclosureCPLR 3102(c)Workplace Drug UseEmployee TerminationQualified PrivilegeAbsolute PrivilegeMaliceConfidentialityDiscoveryDefamation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightman v. Flaum

Plaintiff sued Rabbis Flaum and Weinberger for breach of clergy-penitent privilege, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, alleging they disclosed confidential communications made during spiritual counseling. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming no private cause of action exists for breach of the privilege, and that their disclosures were compelled by Jewish law or made in the presence of third parties, thus waiving confidentiality. The court ruled that a cause of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality does exist, rejecting the argument that the First Amendment provides an absolute defense where tortious conduct is involved and can be determined by neutral principles of law. The court found the disclosure potentially actionable and denied dismissal for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but dismissed the defamation claim due to absolute judicial privilege. Factual issues regarding waiver of privilege remain for trial.

Clergy-Penitent PrivilegeFiduciary DutyConfidentiality BreachIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationFirst AmendmentReligious FreedomSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityRabbinical Counseling
References
53
Case No. 05-20-00786-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Ahmed Zidan v. Alexander Zidan F/K/A Mohammed Zidan

This document is a dissenting opinion regarding a Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) motion to dismiss. Justice Goldstein dissents from the majority's conclusion, arguing that appellant Ahmed Zidan's communication to the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) should be considered absolutely privileged. The dissent contends that TREC is a quasi-judicial body, and therefore, communications made to it are entitled to absolute immunity, regardless of the actor's motivation. Consequently, Justice Goldstein believes Ahmed met his burden to establish an affirmative defense of absolute privilege, and the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss should be reversed.

TexasCourt of AppealsDissenting OpinionTCPAAnti-SLAPPAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeQuasi-Judicial ProceedingTRECReal Estate Commission
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desalvatore v. Washburn

This case concerns a plaintiff attorney's defamation lawsuit against Frederick C. and Joanna L. Washburn, stemming from a letter they sent to the Social Security Administration (SSA) disputing the attorney's fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service and absolute privilege for the allegedly defamatory statements made during an administrative fee review. The plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the defendants' counsel. The court, presided over by Justice Robert F. Julian, determined that the statements made to the SSA were part of a quasi-judicial proceeding and thus absolutely privileged, leading to the dismissal of the defamation complaint. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for counsel disqualification and the defendants' request for sanctions, noting the novelty of the privilege issue concerning SSA complaints.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsQuasi-Judicial BodySocial Security AdministrationFee DisputeService of ProcessAttorney FeesFrivolous LitigationDisqualification of Counsel
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Indemnity Co. v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order sustaining a plea of privilege filed by the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) to be sued in Dallas County, its established residence, rather than McLennan County where the suit was originally filed. The appellant, an insurance company, sought indemnity for a workmen’s compensation settlement concerning a deceased employee. The central legal issue was whether TEIA constitutes a private corporation or a state agency for venue purposes under Texas law. The court, analyzing Article 8308, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., determined that TEIA possesses all characteristics of a private corporation, including the ability to sue and be sued, elected directors, and profit distribution. Consequently, TEIA was deemed a 'person' entitled to claim venue privilege in its county of residence. The trial court’s decision to sustain TEIA's plea of privilege and transfer the case to Dallas County was affirmed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an exception to the general venue statute.

Workers' CompensationVenuePlea of PrivilegeCorporation StatusState AgencyTexas LawCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationDomicileIndemnity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Jenkins

Gladys Elaine Blanton Jenkins, a member of the Athens City Council, filed a libel action against Paul Martin Clark and Black Citizens For Justice, Law and Order, Inc. (BCJLO). The suit stemmed from a memorandum authored by Clark, BCJLO's president, which falsely accused Jenkins of being a convicted felon who served time for prostitution and drugs, and demanded her removal from office. A jury found Clark and BCJLO acted with actual malice, awarding Jenkins $300,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in exemplary damages. Clark and BCJLO appealed, asserting absolute privilege under the Texas Constitution's Petition Clause and insufficient evidence of actual malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting claims of absolute privilege and finding clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

DefamationLibelActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeAbsolute PrivilegeFirst AmendmentPetition ClauseTexas ConstitutionPublic FigureFree Speech
References
61
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 624 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