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
Feb 14, 1997

Nunez v. A-T Financial Information, Inc.

Plaintiff, an account executive at A-T Financial Information, Inc. (ATF), alleged sexual harassment and discrimination by defendant Andrews, ATF's Vice President of Sales. During a sales dinner, Andrews made crude sexual remarks to the plaintiff. Following the incident, plaintiff reported the conduct, experienced a deterioration in her work relationships, and was ultimately terminated by ATF. She filed a lawsuit alleging violations of federal and New York Human Rights Law, as well as common law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted ATF's motion to dismiss the common law claims, ruling that the defamation claim lacked special damages, Andrews' conduct, while reprehensible, did not meet the 'outrageous' standard for emotional distress, and New York law does not recognize an implied covenant in at-will employment.

Sexual harassmentWorkplace discriminationHostile work environmentDefamation lawIntentional infliction of emotional distressAt-will employmentMotion to dismissNew York common lawTitle VII claimsHuman Rights Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murray Energy Corp. v. Reorg Research, Inc.

In this special proceeding, petitioner Murray Energy Corporation sought pre-action disclosure from Reorg Research, Inc. under CPLR 3102 (c) to identify confidential sources who provided information about Murray's financial strategies. Reorg argued that it was protected by New York’s Shield Law (Civil Rights Law § 79-h), claiming its editorial team acts as professional journalists disseminating news. The court, presided over by Carol R. Edmead, J., examined whether Reorg’s information, distributed to a limited group of high-end subscribers under strict confidentiality agreements, qualified as "news intended for dissemination to the public." The court concluded that Reorg does not meet this statutory requirement because its business model explicitly prevents public dissemination. Therefore, the Shield Law did not apply, and the court granted Murray’s application for pre-action disclosure, ordering Reorg to reveal the names and contact information of its sources.

Pre-action disclosureCPLR 3102New York Shield LawCivil Rights Law § 79-hJournalist's privilegeConfidential sourcesNews disseminationFinancial intelligencePrivate speechPublic concern
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seife v. National Institutes of Health

Plaintiff Charles Seife, acting pro se, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records concerning "special governmental employees" (SGEs) who serve on NIH advisory panels. Seife specifically requested documents from the ethics files of 44 NIH SGEs related to managing conflicts of interest, including "recusal lists" and "waiver determinations." NIH produced partially redacted documents, withholding information based on FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6, which protect confidential financial disclosure reports and personal privacy. The court granted Seife's motion in part, ordering NIH to release unredacted waiver determinations concerning SGEs' financial interests and relationships, but allowed redaction of identifying information about spouses or dependent children, and upheld the withholding of recusal lists. The decision balanced the SGEs' privacy interests against the public's interest in government transparency and accountability regarding potential conflicts of interest.

FOIANational Institutes of HealthSpecial Governmental EmployeesConflict of InterestRecusal ListsWaiver DeterminationsEthics in Government ActFinancial DisclosurePrivacy InterestsGovernment Transparency
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

B-S Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Burns Bros. Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff, a heavy construction business, alleged that defendant Burns Brothers Contractors, Inc., a material supplier, and defendant Robert E. Anderson, a former key project estimator for plaintiff, conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contracts and misappropriated confidential information. Plaintiff contended that Anderson, upon joining Burns, used its confidential bidding information to secure contracts with Champion Paper Company, Inc., which were originally intended for plaintiff. The Supreme Court initially granted a temporary restraining order and an order of seizure for files taken by Anderson, but later vacated the restraining order. Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations, which the Supreme Court granted, while denying Burns' cross-motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentations and misappropriation of confidential information to gain a competitive advantage were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Tortious InterferenceConfidential InformationTrade SecretsCompetitive AdvantageMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewCommercial DisputeEmployment LawUnfair Competition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godinez v. Siena College

Plaintiff, an alumnus of Siena College, initiated a lawsuit against Siena College and Shirley Staley, a nurse employed at the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC). The action stemmed from Staley's report to a crisis team about potential violent behavior by the plaintiff at his graduation ceremony, information allegedly based on statements from the plaintiff's mother. Following this, Siena College declared the plaintiff 'persona non grata' and barred him from campus. The plaintiff alleged that Staley negligently disclosed inaccurate confidential information and that Siena College negligently barred him from campus without due process. The Supreme Court granted Siena College's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, and subsequently dismissed the complaint against Staley at the close of the plaintiff's case. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, ruling that Siena College had the authority to ban the plaintiff as an alumnus and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against Staley because the alleged confidential information was deemed manufactured and thus lacked confidentiality.

Student conductPersona non grataConfidentiality breachMental health informationSummary judgmentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewEducation lawExecutive lawCivil rights
References
12
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 1,499 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