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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. 05-19-00728-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Katherine Mitchell v. Dallas Housing Authority

This document is a 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond' filed by an individual named Kyle Fitz. In this statement, Mr. Fitz declares his financial situation to the court, providing details on his monthly income, property value, and monthly expenses. He also addresses whether he is represented by legal aid and if he receives public benefits, stating he does not receive needs-based public benefits and is not represented by legal aid. The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate his indigence and inability to cover court-related costs.

Financial HardshipCourt CostsAppeal BondIndigencyLegal Aid EligibilityIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt DisclosurePublic Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2007

Putnam v. County of Steuben

This case involves an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs on their cause of action for malicious prosecution. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging the liability verdict and the award of damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the liability verdict, concluding that the jury rationally found the defendant's employees acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights by initiating a criminal prosecution without probable cause. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, determining that the lower court erred in setting aside the damages award, as damages for malicious prosecution can include those for arrest and imprisonment, and no false arrest claim was present to necessitate a separate instruction on avoiding duplicate awards. The judgment was unanimously affirmed without costs, and the order was modified to deny the defendant’s postjudgment motion in its entirety.

Malicious ProsecutionJury VerdictDamages AwardLiabilityCriminal ProsecutionProbable CauseActual MaliceFalse InstrumentAcquittalPostjudgment Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of L. Z., M. H. and N. U., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This document is a "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" designed for use in Texas courts. It requires the individual filing the lawsuit (plaintiff) to provide their full legal name, date of birth, home and mailing addresses, phone number, and email. The form also asks for information about financial dependents. The applicant must indicate their legal representation status, specifically if they are represented by legal aid or were deemed financially eligible but could not be taken on as a client. Additionally, the statement requires disclosure of any needs-based public benefits received. A significant portion of the form focuses on the applicant's financial situation, including monthly income sources and amounts, the total value of their property (cash, bank accounts, vehicles, other assets), and a detailed breakdown of monthly expenses such as rent, food, utilities, medical costs, and transportation. Finally, the applicant must list any outstanding debts and can attach additional supporting facts. The document concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided and stating the inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Court CostsAppeal BondIndigencyFinancial DisclosureLegal AidPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt Listing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. 09 Civ. 7283
Regular Panel Decision

D'OLIMPIO v. Crisafi

This Memorandum Order addresses motions to dismiss in consolidated actions: D’Olimpio v. Crisafi et al. (09 Civ. 7283) and Crisafi v. Kaplan (09 Civ. 9952). Plaintiff D’Olimpio alleged malicious prosecution and constitutional violations against law enforcement officers, while plaintiff Kaplan claimed retaliation for reporting misconduct. The court denied motions to dismiss D’Olimpio’s malicious prosecution and supervisory liability claims, finding sufficient allegations for malice and rejecting a narrow reading of supervisory liability under Iqbal. However, Kaplan's First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice, as his speech was deemed part of his official duties. Additionally, Crisafi’s defamation counterclaim against Kaplan was dismissed with prejudice, as Kaplan was not found legally responsible for the republication of statements in an Inspector General report.

Malicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestUnlawful DetentionConstitutional ViolationsSupervisory LiabilityQualified ImmunityProbable CauseDefamationFirst Amendment RightsRetaliation Claim
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rine v. Chase

The plaintiff appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed claims of defamation and malicious prosecution against a certified social worker. The social worker had reported suspected child abuse based on therapy sessions, which was later deemed unfounded. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under Social Services Law § 419 for good faith reporting. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the defendant demonstrated reasonable cause and good faith, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of misconduct, gross negligence, or actual malice to overcome the statutory immunity. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed as it merged with the final judgment.

DefamationMalicious ProsecutionChild Abuse ReportingSocial Services Law § 419Qualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureGood FaithGross NegligenceActual Malice
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,527 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