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

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mauze v. CBS Corp.

Lynda Mauze, an African-American woman and former Manager of Sports Production Services at CBS, sued CBS for discrimination based on race and sex, hostile work environment, and retaliation after her termination in April 2014. She alleged CBS refused to promote her, raise her pay, and ultimately fired her, violating Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, EPA, and New York Labor Law § 194. CBS moved for summary judgment, arguing Mauze was fired for insubordination and job abandonment. The court granted summary judgment for CBS on discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext or pervasive hostility. However, the court denied summary judgment on Mauze's retaliation claim, concluding that the circumstances and timing of her termination, particularly after her internal and EEOC complaints, allowed for a plausible inference of retaliatory animus.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLNYCHRL
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CBS Inc. v. Liederman

CBS Inc. sued David and William Liederman for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act and New York law, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from opening a restaurant named “Television City.” CBS operates a television production facility by the same name and holds a registered service mark. The court applied the Polaroid factors to evaluate the likelihood of confusion, finding that despite the identical marks, the strength of CBS's mark was limited to television production, and there was insufficient proximity between a production studio and a restaurant. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion or success on the merits, and also rejected the unfair competition and dilution claims.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionLanham ActPreliminary InjunctionLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsService MarkRestaurant IndustryEntertainment Industry
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fioranelli v. News Building Corp.

Anthony Fioranelli sued News Building Corporation for injuries sustained during employment. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy because News Building Corporation was effectively the plaintiff's employer, New York News, Inc., due to corporate merger. Prior motions to dismiss on these grounds were denied on procedural issues. This court, however, found that New York News, Inc. was indeed the building's owner at the time of the accident under Business Corporation Law § 906(b)(2). Consequently, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided the plaintiff's sole remedy, dismissing the action against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation exclusivityCorporate mergerBuilding ownershipCPLR dismissal motionLaw of the Case doctrineBusiness Corporation LawEmployer liabilityPersonal injury claimProcedural lawSubstantive law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2002

O'Gorman v. Journal News Westchester

Plaintiffs Dennis O'Gorman and his wife sued Jean Alcenat for personal injuries after a vehicle collision. They later added Journal News Westchester as a defendant, asserting vicarious liability as Alcenat was delivering newspapers for them. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel based on a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination that Alcenat was an employee of Journal News. Journal News opposed, arguing Alcenat was an independent contractor and the WCB's finding wasn't dispositive for vicarious liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions, and the plaintiffs appealed the denial of their partial summary judgment motion. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the WCB's determination of an employer-employee relationship was a mixed question of law and fact, not purely evidentiary, and therefore not entitled to preclusive effect for vicarious liability purposes.

Collateral EstoppelVicarious LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorWorkers' Compensation BoardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMixed Question of Law and FactAdministrative Agency DeterminationPersonal Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holcomb v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal by the Daily News regarding a Workmen's Compensation Board award of death benefits to the widow of John Holcomb. Holcomb, an employee of the Daily News, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a company delivery truck while being transported to work by a fellow employee. The appellants argued that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer was not contractually obligated to provide transportation. However, the Board found, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that a common and regular practice of employees transporting each other to work, knowingly acquiesced to by the employer for its own benefit, constituted an implicit assumption of responsibility for transportation-related risks. The court held that a frequent and regular practice of providing transportation, even if not contractually obligated, can render such transportation incidental to employment, making resulting injuries compensable.

Fatal AccidentTransportation to WorkEmployer AcquiescenceCommon PracticeCourse of EmploymentDeath BenefitsWorkers' CompensationImplied ContractGratuitous TransportationRisk Responsibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaeta v. New York News Inc.

This libel action, brought by Catherine Gaeta, a nonpublic figure, against New York News Inc. and reporter Marcia Kramer, tests the reach of the 'gross irresponsibility' standard established in Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch. Gaeta sued over statements in a Daily News article concerning a State program for transferring mental patients to nursing homes, which featured her former husband, George Nies. The article included allegedly false and defamatory details about Nies' nervous breakdown and the circumstances of their son's death, which Gaeta attributed to her dating other men. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' denial of summary judgment for defendants, concluding that the challenged statements were within the sphere of legitimate public concern, making the gross irresponsibility standard applicable. The court found that Gaeta failed to present evidence to justify a jury concluding that defendants acted in a grossly irresponsible manner, given the reporter's reliance on a previously reliable source and lack of reason to doubt the information. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed.

LibelDefamationPublic ConcernGross IrresponsibilitySummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentJournalismNewspaper LiabilityMedia LawMental Health
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03417 [205 AD3d 1269]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Hogan v. CBS Tel. Stas.

Thomas Hogan, a freelance per diem technician for CBS Television Stations, filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge after injuring his finger and filing a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in Hogan's favor, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding no violation of WCL § 120. The Board's decision was based on findings that Hogan was informed of his assignment's termination prior to his injury and claim, and there was no causal nexus between his claim and the termination. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's amended decision, deferring to the Board's credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence supported its conclusion that Hogan failed to prove a retaliatory discharge.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationRetaliatory Discharge ClaimCausal Nexus Burden of ProofSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard Credibility DeterminationsFreelance Employee RightsOccupational InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate Division AffirmationMoot Appeals Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. News World Communications, Inc.

Judge Silverman dissents from an order, arguing for its reversal, the granting of a protective order, and the striking of interrogatories. The case involves the State Insurance Fund's claim against News World Communications, Inc., for unpaid workers' compensation and disability insurance premiums. Silverman contends the interrogatories, spanning 20 pages, are excessively burdensome and represent an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs and funding of the Unification Church, which is connected to the defendant newspaper, 'The News World'. The judge believes this inquiry, with its First Amendment implications, is irrelevant to determining the amount of premiums due.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsDisability Insurance PremiumsProtective OrderInterrogatoriesDiscovery AbuseFirst Amendment RightsReligious FreedomBurdensome DisclosureInsurance FundNewspaper Industry
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1994

Cruz v. Latin News Impacto Newspaper

The case involves an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning causes of action for libel and Civil Rights Law violations. The defendant, Latin News Impacto, a Spanish-language newspaper, published an article with the plaintiff's picture, describing her as having AIDS. At the time of publication, the plaintiff was HIV-positive and seriously ill with AIDS-related conditions, but did not formally meet the then-current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definition of AIDS, although a new definition, effective weeks later, would have included her. The IAS Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact and that the article was of private concern. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that even if the statement about AIDS was not literally true at publication, the defendant did not act with gross irresponsibility given the plaintiff's undisputed AIDS-related illnesses and the imminent CDC definition change. Furthermore, the court found no unauthorized advertising use of the photo under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, as the article was on a matter of public interest and not an advertisement in disguise. A separate trespass cause of action was not appealed and remains viable.

LibelDefamationCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentAIDS/HIV Status DisclosurePublic Concern DoctrineGross Irresponsibility StandardFalse LightUnauthorized Use of Likeness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 87 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