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
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. 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
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
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

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hetzler v. Record/Information Dissemination Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by pro se plaintiff Déirdre McKiernan Hetzler seeking records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning her father. The FBI released some documents, redacted others, and withheld some entirely, citing various FOIA exemptions including national security, internal agency rules, and protection of confidential sources and third-party privacy. Plaintiff challenged the breadth of these redactions. The Court conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and, after evaluating the asserted exemptions, granted in part and denied in part both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion, ordering the FBI to re-process and re-release certain documents where redactions were deemed unjustified.

FOIANational SecurityClassified InformationRedactionSummary JudgmentPrivacy InterestsConfidential SourcesFBIGovernment RecordsDeclassified Documents
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Virginia Livermore-Johnson & New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision

Petitioner, a Supervising Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), faced suspension and termination for allegedly disclosing confidential information to her parolee husband. Her disciplinary grievance proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator ordered her reinstatement with back pay, finding DOCCS failed to prove probable cause for suspension and did not establish guilt on all aspects of the charge. When DOCCS refused to reinstate her, petitioner sought to confirm the award in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied her application and granted DOCCS's cross-motion to vacate the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's vacatur. The appellate court found the arbitrator's interim decision regarding probable cause was irrational and exceeded his authority. Furthermore, the Appellate Division concluded that the arbitration award, which would have reinstated petitioner without penalty despite her admission of accessing and sharing confidential DOCCS information with a parolee, violated a strong public policy against such disclosures, as outlined in Public Officers Law § 74 and DOCCS's own directives. Consequently, the award was properly vacated.

Arbitration Award VacaturPublic Policy ViolationConfidential Information DisclosureDepartment of CorrectionsEmployee DisciplineCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewState Employee MisconductAdministrative Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medlin v. Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Alexander Medlin sued Rome Strip Steel Co., Inc. (RSS) and several individuals for disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law, and for improper disclosure of confidential medical information. Medlin, a Hot Roll Slitter Operator, suffered a non-work-related back injury and requested light duty or accommodations upon his return, which RSS denied after a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). The EEOC found probable discrimination by RSS regarding accommodation denial and confidentiality breaches. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contesting Medlin's disability status, RSS's duty to provide light duty, and the impropriety of medical information disclosure. The court denied RSS's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning Medlin's perceived disability, RSS's failure in the interactive accommodation process, and the alleged improper disclosure. However, the ADA claims against individual defendants Kirk Hinman, Roger Pratt, and Walter Race were dismissed, as were claims against Impact and Cindy Bush, along with Title VII and ADEA claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationFunctional Capacity EvaluationConfidential Medical InformationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPerceived DisabilityInteractive ProcessNew York State Human Rights Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 1,028 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