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. 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
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

Needle v. Alling & Cory, Inc.

Gerald Needle, a former employee of Ailing and Cory, Inc., sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The emotional distress claim was previously dismissed. Needle, who suffered from diabetes leading to toe amputations and permanent physical restrictions, argued that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his warehouse associate position. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting Needle was not a qualified individual with a disability and no suitable accommodation or vacant position existed. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ADA claim, finding Needle could not perform essential job functions and no reasonable accommodation was viable. The court also denied the defendant's counterclaim for COBRA benefits and dismissed it.

Disability discriminationADAEmployment lawSummary judgmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsCOBRA benefitsDismissal with prejudiceDiabetic complicationsAmputations
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. Abate

Plaintiffs, correction officers for the New York City Department of Correction, sued the Department under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state laws, alleging discriminatory termination or attempted termination due to physical or emotional conditions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that contact with prisoners is an essential job function that plaintiffs cannot perform. The court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether inmate supervision is an essential function, noting that many non-contact positions exist and are filled by both medically monitored and able-bodied officers. Consequently, the court denied most of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the plaintiffs' claims for damages to proceed. However, the motion was granted regarding plaintiff Karen Sessoms, who was deemed not disabled under the ADA and failed to notify the Department of her condition.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationCorrection OfficersEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentMedical ImpairmentDisability LawCivil Service LawCollateral Estoppel
References
13
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
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

Zeranti v. United States

Plaintiff Kenneth Zeranti brought an action against the United States of America and psychotherapist Dr. Erica L. Sargent under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence. Zeranti claimed Dr. Sargent, while his therapist at the Buffalo VA Hospital, mismanaged his emotional dependence, engaged in a sexual relationship with him, and then abruptly ended it, causing severe depression. He pursued claims for vicarious liability based on Dr. Sargent's negligence and for negligent supervision against the government. Defendant moved to dismiss both claims, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the discretionary function exception. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Dr. Sargent's initial handling of the transference phenomenon fell within the scope of her employment and whether the VA's supervision failures were due to dereliction of duty rather than policy decisions. The court concluded that these factual issues prevented dismissal at the summary judgment stage.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligenceVicarious LiabilityNegligent SupervisionPsychotherapist MisconductSexual MisconductTransference PhenomenonScope of EmploymentSovereign ImmunityDiscretionary Function Exception
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 829 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