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
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

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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BCRE 230 Riverside v. Fuchs

This case concerns an appeal of two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order that allowed the defendant to amend counterclaims and subsequently dismissed those counterclaims. The second order denied the defendant's motion to renew the first order concerning a defamation counterclaim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both lower court orders, finding the defendant's proposed counterclaims for defamation, injurious falsehood, and malicious prosecution to be palpably insufficient as a matter of law due to failures in meeting pleading requirements for particularity, malice, and special damages. The court also rejected the defendant's argument for discovery and found the facts presented for renewal were not new or would not alter the prior determination.

DefamationInjurious FalsehoodMalicious ProsecutionCounterclaimsMotion to VacateMotion to RenewPleading RequirementsCPLR 3016(a)ParticularitySpecial Damages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenyon v. State

Norman H. Kenyon, an employee of the Department of Labor, was suspended and indicted for grand larceny after selling scrap paper for office social events. An arbitrator later found no probable cause for his suspension, and his criminal indictment was dismissed "in the interest of justice." Kenyon and his wife subsequently filed a claim against the State, alleging malicious prosecution among other actions. The Court of Claims dismissed the malicious prosecution claim, determining that a dismissal in the interest of justice does not constitute a termination favorable to the accused. This appellate decision affirmed the dismissal, reiterating that such a disposition does not indicate innocence, which is a necessary element for a malicious prosecution claim. The court also noted that the arbitrator's finding on the suspension did not equate to a determination of probable cause for the criminal charges.

Malicious ProsecutionGrand LarcenyDismissal in the Interest of JusticeFavorable TerminationProbable CauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementState EmployeeSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. 04-10-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2011

Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P., Derra Edwards, Hugh L. Lam, James P. Shee, Cheng-Lein C. Shee, Ricardo Velasquez, Gary M. Maganaris, Robin K. Pang-Maganaris, Dennis E. Gauthier, Cecilia G. Gauthier, Leal Urgin, Dresden & Goldberg Invesco, LLC v. John E. Vogt and Nelda L. Vogt

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in favor of John E. Vogt and Nelda L. Vogt against Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P., and other associated entities. The Vogts' claims included easement encroachment, diversion of surface water, and malicious prosecution. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence for injunctive relief and damages, the admission of expert testimony, and the malicious prosecution finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming the awards for past damages and injunctive relief without finding a double recovery. It also upheld the findings related to surface water diversion and malicious prosecution, addressing procedural aspects including a default judgment against a co-defendant, Trada Partners VI, LP.

Easement EncroachmentSurface Water DiversionMalicious ProsecutionProperty RightsAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyTemporary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionDefault JudgmentRule 11 Agreement
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. County of Nassau

Pro se plaintiff Joel Anderson filed an amended complaint alleging false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process against Nassau County, the City of Long Beach, and Detective Shaun Dowling under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court granted Nassau County's motion to dismiss false arrest and unlawful imprisonment claims. All Section 1983 malicious prosecution claims and all abuse of process claims against all defendants were dismissed. The remaining claims are false arrest and unlawful imprisonment under Section 1983 and New York law against the City of Long Beach and Detective Dowling, and a New York law claim for malicious prosecution against the City of Long Beach.

Civil RightsFourth AmendmentRule 12(b)(6)False ArrestUnlawful ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessMunicipal LiabilityProbable CausePro Se Litigation
References
33
Case No. 14-10-00555-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Soon Phat, L.P. v. Alvarado

This consolidated appeal concerns a 2005 fight during a truck towing incident, leading to a civil suit by Juvenal and Feliciano Alvarado against multiple individuals and entities, including wrecker driver Brock Keith Dion, his helper Samuel Lee Thompson, Arrow Towing, Charleston Court Apartments, and security guard Mesha Boyles. The jury initially found the defendants liable for assault, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The trial court subsequently disregarded the malicious prosecution findings. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding malicious prosecution due to a plea bargain. The appellate court also sustained some issues for Charleston Court Appellants and Robert Groce Dill concerning joint and several liability, while affirming other aspects of the judgment, including exemplary damages against Dion and Thompson for assault.

Tort ClaimsAssaultFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionJoint EnterpriseVicarious LiabilityExemplary DamagesAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldarola v. DeCiuceis

Plaintiff, Rocco Caldarola, a corrections officer, initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Westchester County Department of Correction and individuals, alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest. The claims stemmed from an investigation into Caldarola's eligibility for job injury benefits, which led to his arrest for violating the Public Officers Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing probable cause. The court denied summary judgment on the false arrest claim, citing disputed facts regarding the reliability of the private investigator's report in establishing probable cause. However, summary judgment was granted for the malicious prosecution claim due to the plaintiff's failure to present evidence of malice. The court also partially granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, allowing the addition of Louis D’Aliso as a defendant and the dismissal of William DeCiuceis, but denied the inclusion of a state malicious prosecution claim and a 'liberty deprivation' claim against Andrew Spano.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSummary Judgment MotionProbable CauseCorrections Officer Misconduct42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourth Amendment RightsPublic Officers Law ViolationsResidency Fraud InvestigationLeave to Amend Complaint
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 601 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