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

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 13-06-227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Denise Guzman and Tito Marines, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of David Marines, And Marc Rosenthal v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Diane Thiele

Marc G. Rosenthal appealed a $2,000 sanction imposed by the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas, for "forum-shopping." Rosenthal had initially filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Travis County, which was not granted by Judge Scott Jenkins, then non-suited the claims and re-filed the identical application in Cameron County, where it was granted. Texas Mutual Insurance Company subsequently moved for sanctions in Travis County, arguing Rosenthal's conduct constituted bad faith and abuse of judicial process. Judge Lora Livingston found Rosenthal's actions, particularly seeking a TRO from a second court after the first did not grant it, constituted improper forum-shopping and an abuse of the judicial process, reducing the initial $3,000 sanction to $2,000. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, and overruled Rosenthal's appeal regarding venue and due process.

Forum shoppingSanctionsAbuse of processInherent court powerAppellate reviewTrial court discretionWorkers' compensationTemporary restraining orderNon-suitDue process
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. City of New York

Plaintiff Eris Alvarado filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against parole officers Eunice Green, Thomas Silagi, and Arcadio Almenas, alleging various constitutional violations, including unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, and denial of due process. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the claims related to search, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and malicious abuse of process, finding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that probable cause for arrest existed based on a robbery indictment. However, the court denied summary judgment on the denial of due process claim, citing a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Alvarado knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing, thus precluding dismissal based on qualified immunity for this specific claim.

Parole ViolationDue ProcessSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSearch and Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Parole OfficersWaiver of Rights
References
20
Case No. 1:11-CV-157
Regular Panel Decision

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga

Plaintiff United Pet Supply, Inc., operating a pet store in Chattanooga, Tennessee, sued Defendants Animal Care Trust (a non-profit providing animal control services to the City of Chattanooga) and its employees (Karen Walsh, Paula Hurn, Marvin Nicholson, Jr.) for various constitutional and state law violations. The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in June 2010 where defendants confiscated animals, business records, and the plaintiff's city permit without a pre-deprivation hearing, alleging numerous City Code violations. Plaintiff claimed procedural due process violations, Fourth Amendment violations (unreasonable search and seizure), abuse of process, conversion, and tortious interference with business relationships and contract. The District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, the court denied the motion regarding Fourth Amendment and abuse of process claims, and denied it in part for procedural due process (regarding permit and animals but not business records) and conversion (against McKamey but not individual defendants). The court granted the motion for claims under the Tennessee Constitution and tortious interference claims, dismissing those with prejudice.

Fourth AmendmentDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessAnimal Cruelty LawsBusiness Permit RevocationSearch and SeizureQualified ImmunityAbuse of ProcessConversionTortious Interference
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1992

In re Jamie C.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate the respondents' children as abused and/or neglected. The Family Court had found the father, James D., sexually and physically abused his daughter Jamie C. and neglected all four children, while the mother, Barbara C., sexually abused Jamie and neglected all four. On appeal, the finding of sexual abuse against the mother was reversed due to insufficient corroborating evidence and Jamie C.'s conflicting sworn testimony. However, the findings of the father's sexual and physical abuse, and both parents' neglect stemming from chronic alcohol abuse and violent behavior, were affirmed based on Jamie's credible testimony and other evidence presented.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbusePhysical AbuseAlcohol AbuseCredibility of TestimonyCorroboration of EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaver v. British American Insurance Co.

Appellant Anthony Schaver's workers' compensation case was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court for failing to comply with sanctions. The sanctions were imposed because Schaver repeatedly falsified information under oath regarding his post-injury employment during the discovery process. He failed to disclose two employers, Chem Coast, Inc. and Control Petro-Chem Inspection Company, even after being confronted with evidence. The trial court ordered him to pay $9800 in costs and attorney's fees, with dismissal as the penalty for non-compliance. Schaver did not pay, leading to the case's dismissal. On appeal, Schaver challenged the sanctions as an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion given Schaver's intentional misconduct and rejecting his due process arguments.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscovery AbuseSanctions ImposedFalsified InformationEmployment DisclosureCase DismissalAbuse of Discretion ReviewDue Process RightsAppellate AffirmationTrial Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1995

In re Najam M.

The Family Court's dismissal of a child abuse petition, brought by the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian for Najam M. against her respondent father, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court reinstated the petition and entered a finding of sexual abuse, remanding the case for further proceedings. Expert medical testimony from Dr. Jamie Hoffman Rosenfeld, a child abuse specialist, detailed physical abnormalities in the child consistent with chronic manipulation and sexual abuse, which she affirmed could not be self-inflicted. The child's consistent allegations of abuse by her father, made to multiple individuals, further supported the medical findings. The court determined that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of child abuse, which the parents' explanation failed to rebut.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseFamily CourtAppellate ReversalExpert Medical TestimonyHymenal InjuryPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofChild InterviewParental Explanation Rebuttal
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,722 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