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 05, 1981

Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against his supervisor, Manobianco, and employer, Maimonides Medical Center, following an alleged defamatory statement. Defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed several affirmative defenses, including Workers' Compensation and absolute privilege. The appellate court reversed the order in part, striking the defense of qualified privilege for specific causes of action and the Workers' Compensation defense where employer participation in intentional torts was alleged. However, the Workers' Compensation defense was upheld for claims based on respondeat superior and those where the injury was deemed compensable, even partially. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law abrogates common-law remedies for such injuries, leaving recourse to the Legislature for perceived harsh outcomes.

DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeRespondeat SuperiorCoemployee ImmunityEmployer LiabilityCommon Law Remedies
References
21
Case No. 25874/98
Regular Panel Decision

Jun Chi Guan v. Tuscan Dairy Farms

This dissenting opinion concerns a case where plaintiff Shao Zhen Kwan, a grandmother, sought damages for emotional injuries after witnessing her grandson's fatal accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a grandparent does not qualify as "immediate family" for emotional distress claims under New York law and that the grandmother did not sufficiently witness the event. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The dissenting judge argues that established precedent does not preclude grandparents from "immediate family" status, citing their special legal recognition and caregiving roles. Furthermore, the judge contends that contemporaneous awareness, rather than literal witnessing, is sufficient for such claims. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Immediate Family DoctrineZone of Danger RuleEmotional Distress DamagesBystander RecoveryNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressGrandparent Visitation RightsNew York Tort LawSummary Judgment MotionDe Facto Parent StatusContemporaneous Awareness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casale v. Unipunch, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff seeking recovery for emotional distress and pecuniary damages after witnessing the electrocution of a co-worker at a defendant's work site. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, while the defendant cross-appealed the denial of dismissing the pecuniary damages claim. The court reviewed New York's bystander recovery rules, emphasizing that recovery for emotional injury from witnessing harm to a third person is generally precluded. The court found that the plaintiff did not meet the 'zone of danger' exception from Bovsun v Sanperi because the injured party was not an immediate family member. Consequently, both the emotional distress and the associated pecuniary damages claims were dismissed, modifying the lower court's order.

Emotional DistressPecuniary DamagesBystander RecoveryZone of DangerNegligenceCo-worker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate LawDuty of CareNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1988

Brophy v. County of Putnam

The plaintiff, a former Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging the county opposed his efforts to obtain workers' compensation benefits and wrongfully terminated his employment. His motion for partial summary judgment, based on General Municipal Law § 207-c, was denied by the Supreme Court due to an unjustified five-year delay in asserting the statutory claim, which would prejudice the county. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the motion was affirmed on appeal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's argument against the "theory-of-pleadings doctrine" and emphasizing the lengthy and unexplained delay in asserting the claim after the law's amendment.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPartial Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisability PensionEmployment TerminationProcedural DelayStatutory ClaimAppellate ReviewAffirmationGeneral Municipal Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Augustin v. Jablonsky

Defendants moved to decertify the class regarding special damages, arguing that such claims are too individualized. Plaintiffs opposed, contending that 'garden-variety emotional distress' damages should be determined class-wide. The Court previously awarded general damages of $500 per strip search for the injury to human dignity. However, it ruled that claims for emotional distress damages beyond this general award are inherently individualized and require separate proof, thus granting the defendants' motion to not extend class certification to special damages. The Court also addressed pre- and post-judgment interest and the distribution of the general damages award.

Class ActionStrip SearchEmotional DistressGeneral DamagesSpecial DamagesDecertificationRule 23(b)(3)Constitutional ViolationCivil RightsHuman Dignity
References
48
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation

Residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, sued Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil Corp. for MTBE contamination in their private wells. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to fear of cancer from exposure. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted summary judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding no intent to cause such distress. However, it denied summary judgment for negligent infliction of emotional distress, citing sufficient evidence of exposure and potential subcellular damage, and ordered plaintiffs to undergo mental examinations.

MTBE contaminationGasoline leaksGroundwater contaminationEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressIntentional infliction of emotional distressSummary judgmentToxic tortFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 2,228 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