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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05443
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Alonso v. Reed Elsevier, PLC

Plaintiff William Alonso was injured when a display fell on him at a vision trade show while working as a greeter. The display, designed and manufactured by Freeman according to Reed's specifications, fell as Javits Center electricians were mounting a television monitor. The Supreme Court denied Freeman's motion for summary judgment, denied Reed's motion to amend its answer with a Workers' Compensation defense, and granted Reed's motion for contractual indemnification against Freeman. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against all defendants except Freeman and Reed, citing issues of fact regarding Freeman's design and Reed's control. The court affirmed the denial of Reed's Workers' Compensation defense and the grant of contractual indemnification.

Summary judgmentNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturWorkers' Compensation defenseContractual indemnificationAppellate reviewDisplay fallTrade show injurySpecial employee doctrineMotion to amend answer
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guarino v. St. John Fisher College

Plaintiff Lucia Guarino, a faculty member at St. John Fisher College, sued the college for Title VII and New York employment discrimination, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation from her former supervisor, Dr. Carol Freeman, and Dr. Freeman's husband. Plaintiff described Dr. Freeman's behavior as 'bizarre' and 'needy' but explicitly denied it was romantic or sexual, and stated she was not treated badly because she was a woman. The court found no evidence to support a hostile work environment claim based on sex discrimination, as the incidents were facially neutral and not shown to be sex-based. The retaliation claim also failed because the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred before she formally complained of discrimination, and her actions (transferring to a new position, being granted tenure) did not constitute materially adverse actions. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Executive LawFaculty MemberSupervisor HarassmentGender Discrimination
References
33
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 04898
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2014

Freeman v. Tawil

The case involves an action for personal injuries where the injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, was allegedly struck by an automobile. Plaintiffs, Robert Freeman and his wife, moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which was granted by the Supreme Court, Kings County. The defendants, Sara Tawil and Meyer Tawil, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that the defendants successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding the injured plaintiff's comparative fault, thus precluding summary judgment.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentComparative FaultNegligenceAppellate ReviewLiabilitySanitation WorkerMotion PracticeTriable Issue of Fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraci v. Hickey-Freeman Company, Inc.

Mr. Faraci, the plaintiff, filed a Title VII Civil Rights action against his employer, Hickey-Freeman Company, Inc., for unlawful dismissal based on national origin, and against his Union for inadequate defense, also due to national origin. Initially, the court dismissed the complaint against the Union on September 8, 1975, citing Mr. Faraci's failure to join the Union in the New York State Human Rights Division proceedings, a jurisdictional prerequisite. Mr. Faraci requested a rehearing, arguing that despite not explicitly naming the Union, his communication to the Division implicitly included a complaint against them. The court, acknowledging Mr. Faraci's handicaps in law and English, and noting that the Division itself failed to recognize the complaint against the Union as discrimination based on national origin, decided to reconsider. Ultimately, the court reversed its previous dismissal, reinstating the action against the Union by construing Mr. Faraci's attempt to proceed before the Division as sufficient compliance with deferral requirements, emphasizing that technicalities should not hinder laypersons in such statutory schemes.

Title VIICivil RightsNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to ReconsiderJurisdictional PrerequisiteState Human Rights LawEEOC ChargePro Se LitigantDeferral Requirement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. 00-CV-204, 00-CV-246
Regular Panel Decision

Freeman v. Great Lakes Energy Partners, L.L.C.

This case addresses a pair of motions to remand two separate lawsuits, Freeman and Kershaw, which were initially removed to the Western District of New York. Plaintiffs, landowners with royalty interests in natural gas wells, allege that the defendant gas well operators conspired to underpay their royalties. The central legal question was whether the individual claims of the putative class members, including compensatory and punitive damages, met the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction. The court also considered whether attorneys' fees could be aggregated and the impact of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 on the Zahn v. International Paper Co. precedent. The court granted the motions to remand, concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the class members or representative plaintiffs satisfied the jurisdictional minimum.

Class ActionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversySupplemental JurisdictionRemandOil and Gas RoyaltiesUnderpaymentBreach of ContractFraudWestern District of New York
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02280 [216 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2023

Carey v. Toy Indus. Assn. TM, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding claims against Freeman Expositions, Inc., a third-party defendant. Plaintiff Kevin Carey, alleged to be a special employee of Freeman, was injured while working. The Supreme Court initially denied Freeman's motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and contribution claims from Toy Industry Association, Inc. The Appellate Division granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims, finding that Workers' Compensation Law precluded them due to Carey's status as a special employee of Freeman. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on contractual indemnification, citing remaining factual issues regarding Freeman's 'direct control.' An appeal concerning leave to renew was dismissed as academic.

summary judgmentcontractual indemnificationcommon-law indemnificationcontribution claimsspecial employeeWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3014judicial admissionsscope of employmentappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

Donald Murphy, an NBA referee, underwent a physical examination by defendant Dr. Richard Blum and a stress test analyzed by Blum, which was found "abnormal." The results were communicated to the NBA and Murphy's personal physician. Following a a cardiac arrest that ended his career, Murphy sued Dr. Blum for medical malpractice. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no physician-patient relationship existed between Murphy and Dr. Blum because Blum was retained solely by the NBA for an examination, not for treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, upholding that a doctor engaged for examination purposes only assumes duties associated with those functions, not duties concerning treatment or expert opinions.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipDuty of CareComplaint DismissalCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewProfessional Sports InjuryPre-employment ExaminationNo Physician-Patient RelationshipAffirmation of Order
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,346 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