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
Oct 31, 2002

Kobre v. United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc.

Elisha Kobre, a junior counselor, suffered quadriplegic injuries from a shallow dive at Camp Mogen Avraham in 1991. His mother, Sheryl Kobre, initiated a negligence action against United Jewish Appeal (UJA) and Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Service Corporation (FOJP), alleging they exercised control over the camp's operations and safety. While the action against the camp itself was settled via workers' compensation, UJA and FOJP sought summary judgment, which was initially denied. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that neither UJA, a philanthropic funder, nor FOJP, an insurance advisor, exerted sufficient control over the camp's waterfront activities to establish a legal duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that FOJP's safety surveys were primarily for its own benefit in reducing insurance risks. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

NegligenceDuty of CareSummary JudgmentCamp SafetyShallow Water DivingQuadriplegiaWorkers' CompensationPhilanthropic OrganizationInsurance LiabilityRisk Management
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. American Jewish Committee

Plaintiffs Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rosa Sacharin, descendants of Holocaust victims, sued The American Jewish Committee (AJC) to halt the construction of a memorial trench at the Belzec death camp in Poland, funded by defendant AJC. Plaintiffs argued the trench violated Jewish law (Halacha) and international law, specifically the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) for Sacharin, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress for Rabbi Weiss. The Court, citing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, determined that the international conventions referenced by Sacharin (Protocol I and ICCPR) did not establish sufficiently definite or universally accepted legal obligations to prohibit the trench construction. Consequently, Sacharin's ATCA claim was dismissed, and Rabbi Weiss's state law claims were remanded to New York State Supreme Court due to the dismissal of the federal cause of action.

Holocaust MemorialBelzecAlien Tort Claims ActInternational Humanitarian LawJewish Religious LawHalacha ViolationDesecration of GravesEmotional DistressSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial Discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Council of Jewish Federations

Tyrone Humphrey sued his former employer, Council of Jewish Federations, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Humphrey claimed experiences of retrenchment, demotion, a racially hostile environment, denial of leave, unequal pay, negative performance evaluations, and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved to dismiss, citing untimely EEOC filings, unincluded claims, mootness, and statute of limitations. The court found Humphrey's EEOC filings timely due to a worksharing agreement and his hostile environment claim reasonably related. The court also ruled § 1981 claims were timely and prior arbitration did not preclude federal civil rights claims, ultimately denying the motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissTimeliness of ClaimsEEOC Worksharing AgreementStatute of LimitationsArbitration PreclusionHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1986

Firestein v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center

Helene Firestein, an employee of Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, suffered a work-related hip injury. While hospitalized at Kingsbrook, she sustained an aggravation of her injury due to alleged negligence by a coemployee, Scott. Firestein received workers' compensation benefits for both the initial injury and its aggravation. She then commenced a common-law action against Kingsbrook and Scott for damages from the aggravation. The court determined that her application for and acceptance of workers' compensation benefits do not preclude her from bringing a separate common-law action, as the aggravation of the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, and any recovery would be subject to a workers’ compensation lien. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of motions to dismiss based on the exclusivity of workers' compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawCoemployee NegligenceAggravated InjuryDual Capacity DoctrineExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionMedical MalpracticeEmployer LiabilityThird-Party TortfeasorWorkers' Compensation Lien
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koenig v. Jewish Child Care Ass'n

This case involves a holdover eviction proceeding initiated by petitioner Jerome Koenig against the Jewish Child Care Association of New York City (JCCA) regarding an apartment used as a group home for adolescent girls. The Appellate Division affirmed that JCCA, as an entity, can be a residential tenant under the Rent Stabilization Law, thus subjecting the apartment to its provisions. The court found that Koenig did not meet the requirements to evict JCCA. A dissenting opinion argued that a group home, due to the temporary nature of its occupants and lack of an identifiable individual primary tenant, should not fall under rent stabilization laws.

Rent Stabilization LawHoldover EvictionGroup HomeCorporate TenantPrimary Residence TestAppellate DivisionDissenting OpinionLeasehold EstateEviction ProceedingResidential Tenant
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01294 [203 AD3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2022

Lefort v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.

Claudia Lefort, an appellant, sued Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center for employment discrimination based on gender (pregnancy) after her position as a community access coordinator was eliminated while she was on maternity leave. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the discrimination claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, stating that the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action and that there were no triable issues of fact regarding whether the termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination or whether the defendant's reasons were pretextual. The court emphasized that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination under both the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationSummary JudgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawAdverse Employment ActionPretextTriable Issues of FactAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center

Plaintiff Gleniss Schonholz sued her former employer, Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJ), and several individual defendants under ERISA, seeking severance benefits. Schonholz alleged that LIJ wrongfully denied her severance benefits after requesting her resignation and promising benefits under a May 1991 plan, which she claims was revoked after her employment termination or not in writing. She also brought a promissory estoppel claim and claims against individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seeking punitive damages. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, finding plaintiff adequately alleged non-payment of benefits under a plan in effect at her termination or an invalid unwritten revocation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim with leave to amend, as plaintiff failed to allege actual reliance. Claims against individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and for punitive damages were dismissed with prejudice, as fiduciary duties run to the plan, not individuals, and punitive damages are generally unavailable under ERISA. Cross-motions for Rule 11 sanctions were also denied.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayMotion to DismissPromissory EstoppelFiduciary DutyPunitive DamagesRule 11 SanctionsEmployment LawWelfare Plan
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ciffa v. Jewish Federation Housing Development Fund Co.

On September 1, 1978, Joseph P. Ciffa was seriously injured when a scaffold plank broke at a jobsite owned by Jewish Federation Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., while he was employed by John W. Cowper Co., Inc. Ciffa and his wife sued Jewish Federation and H. J. Mye Lumber Corporation for negligence and Labor Law violations. Third-party complaints for contribution and indemnification were filed against Cowper. After a settlement, the action was converted to a declaratory judgment to determine insurance obligations between Cowper's two carriers, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company (Kemper), and between Aetna and Jewish Federation. The court found Cowper actively negligent and Jewish Federation vicariously liable, entitling Jewish Federation to common-law indemnification from Cowper. Furthermore, a broad contractual indemnification clause between Jewish Federation and Cowper was deemed controlling. Consequently, the court declared Aetna, Cowper's comprehensive general liability carrier, solely responsible for compensating Cowper for recoveries against Jewish Federation and for Jewish Federation's attorneys' fees and expenses.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnification ClauseCommon Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationLabor LawVicarious LiabilityActive NegligenceInsurance Coverage DisputeComprehensive General Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Evelyn Melo, an employee of Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. (JBFCS), filed a tort action after sustaining personal injuries from an attack, rape, and robbery at her workplace. JBFCS moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy for such injuries. Melo cross-moved, arguing that her injuries were not "accidental workplace injuries" and therefore fell outside the purview of workers' compensation. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law, specifically §§ 10, 11, and 21, and relevant case law regarding "accidental injury" and its exceptions. The court determined that Melo was indeed an employee, the incident occurred during her employment, and she failed to demonstrate that the Workers' Compensation Law did not preempt her tort action. The court granted JBFCS's motion to dismiss and denied Melo's cross-motion, also awarding costs to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryWorkplace AssaultRape and RobberyMotion to DismissCPLRAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentEmployer Liability
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 66 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