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. 2024 NY Slip Op 06290
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Matter of McCabe v. 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp.

Maryann McCabe, who lived with her long-term romantic partner David Burrows in his cooperative unit, sought to acquire his lease and shares after his death. The cooperative board denied her request for an automatic transfer, which was available to a shareholder's "spouse," because she was not legally married to Burrows. McCabe argued that this denial constituted marital status discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that "marital status" in the NYCHRL refers to the legal condition of being single, married, divorced, or widowed, and does not extend to discrimination based on one's relationship to a particular person (i.e., not being married to Burrows). The Court found that the City Council's legislative history and subsequent amendments, including the addition of "partnership status" and "caregiver status," indicated a deliberate scope of protections that did not encompass unmarried romantic partners for automatic transfer of shares based on "marital status."

Civil RightsNew York City Human Rights LawDiscriminationMarital StatusCooperative BoardHousing DiscriminationAutomatic TransferUnmarried PartnersAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1992

Kipper v. Doron Precision Systems, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal regarding claims of marital status and age discrimination under Executive Law § 296. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was laid off during a workforce reduction. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the age discrimination claim, finding that the defendant provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the layoff, which the plaintiff failed to rebut as pretextual. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the marital status discrimination claim, citing direct evidence of discriminatory intent from the plaintiff's supervisor, which created a question of credibility suitable for trial. The order was modified, denying summary judgment on the marital status claim and affirming the rest.

Age DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationSummary JudgmentWorkforce ReductionEconomic ConditionsPretextDirect EvidenceCredibilityEmployment LawAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pibouin v. CA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jean-Phillipe Pibouin initiated an employment action against CA, Inc., alleging discrimination based on marital status and national origin under the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), claims for unpaid commissions under New York Labor Law (NYLL), and state equitable remedies for unpaid severance. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of all claims. The marital status discrimination claim was rejected as NYHRL protects marital status itself (e.g., married vs. single), not marriage to a specific individual or coworker. The national origin discrimination claim, based on plaintiff's French descent and comments about his accent, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of a direct link between the alleged discriminatory remarks and the adverse employment actions of demotion and termination. Additionally, claims for unpaid commissions were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide specific proof of outstanding amounts, and his severance claim was found to be preempted by ERISA, having been previously withdrawn with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationNYHRLNYLLERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentUnpaid CommissionsSeverance PayAccent Discrimination
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Chief Judge Cooke dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed an order finding Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc.'s anti-nepotism rule discriminatory. The rule prohibits employees from supervising relatives, including spouses, thereby discriminating against married persons based solely on their marital status. Cooke argues that this policy violates Executive Law Section 296, which forbids employment discrimination based on marital status, as it targets married individuals while overlooking other close personal relationships. He emphasizes that this discrimination can discourage marriage or encourage divorce and impede employment opportunities, thus undermining the protected status of marriage. Cooke concludes that the rule is not a bona fide occupational qualification and votes to affirm the Appellate Division's order, which presumably ruled against Pizza Hut.

Anti-nepotism policyEmployment discriminationMarital status discriminationExecutive Law Section 296Bona fide occupational qualificationAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployee rightsWorkplace conflictFamily status
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Status Lounge Inc.

This case involves Status Lounge Incorporated suing media outlets, Hearst Newspapers, LLC and KHOU-TV, Inc., along with their reporters, for libel and business disparagement stemming from articles published about a shooting incident. The defendant media outlets filed a verified plea in abatement under the Defamation Mitigation Act (DMA), which automatically abated the lawsuit for sixty days. Following the abatement period, they moved to dismiss the claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), but the trial court denied these motions as untimely, adhering to the TCPA's strict sixty-day filing deadline post-service. On appeal, the central question was whether the DMA's abatement period tolls the TCPA's deadline for filing a motion to dismiss. The appellate court concluded that the DMA's abatement period does toll the TCPA's filing deadline, thereby making the defendants' motions timely, and consequently reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits.

DefamationLibelBusiness DisparagementTexas Citizens Participation ActDefamation Mitigation ActAbatementStatutory DeadlinesFirst Amendment RightsFree SpeechInterlocutory Appeal
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Georgiades v. Di Ferrante

Izolda Georgiades appealed a judgment declaring that no common law or ceremonial marriage existed with Nicola Di Ferrante, which also awarded attorney's fees and issued a permanent injunction. Georgiades argued her nonsuit of the divorce petition dismissed the entire case, including Di Ferrante's counterclaim for declaratory judgment. The court ruled that Di Ferrante's counterclaim sought affirmative relief independent of Georgiades's claims, making marital status a proper subject for declaratory relief. The court upheld the award of attorney's fees, partly due to Georgiades's failure to appear for a deposition related to the counterclaim, and affirmed the permanent injunction, as it was based on Di Ferrante's independent cause of action. The court found that a justiciable controversy existed regarding marital status despite the nonsuit.

Declaratory JudgmentCommon Law MarriageNonsuitAffirmative ReliefAttorney's FeesPermanent InjunctionMarital StatusTexas LawCivil ProcedureFamily Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2001

Levin v. Yeshiva University

Plaintiffs Sara Levin and Maggie Jones, lesbian students at Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM), challenged the university's housing policy that restricted cohabitation in university-owned housing to students, their spouses, and dependent children. They alleged discrimination based on marital status and a disparate impact on the basis of sexual orientation, violating the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, which the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order, reinstating the disparate impact claim for Levin and Jones under the New York City Human Rights Law, asserting that the lower court erred in its comparison group analysis by excluding married students. The Court found no facial discrimination on marital status but allowed the sexual orientation disparate impact claim to proceed.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHousing PolicyMarital StatusNew York City Human Rights LawUniversity HousingLesbian RightsDiscrimination ClaimAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Community Service Society v. Welfare Inspector General

The case concerns an application by the Community Service Society (CSS) and Gladys Baez to quash a subpoena issued by the Welfare Inspector General of the State of New York. The subpoena sought privileged communications between Baez and a certified social worker at CSS concerning her marital status and employment, information relevant to an investigation of alleged welfare fraud. Petitioners argued the communications were protected under CPLR 4508. The Inspector General contended Baez waived the privilege by signing a public assistance form and that the communication revealed contemplation of a crime. The court ruled that the signed consent form did not constitute a clear waiver of privilege. It also determined that information about marital status or employment does not inherently reveal the contemplation of a crime for the purpose of the CPLR 4508 exception. Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash the subpoena, affirming the privileged nature of the communications, but denied Baez's requests for an injunction and class action certification.

Social worker-client privilegeCPLR 4508Subpoena quashWelfare fraud investigationWaiver of privilegeConfidential communicationsClass action denialExecutive LawSocial Services LawPenal Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGrath v. Nassau Health Care Corp.

This case involves Sally Pistorio McGrath and John McGrath suing Nassau Health Care Corporation (NHCC). Sally Pistorio McGrath alleges sexual harassment and retaliation by NHCC's former board chairman, Eric Rosenblum, including hostile work environment and quid pro quo claims under Title VII and New York Executive Law. She also brings Equal Protection and First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a New York Executive Law marital status discrimination claim, and common law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. John McGrath asserts a loss of consortium claim. NHCC moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that McGrath failed to exhaust administrative remedies for Title VII claims, did not plead a municipal custom or policy for § 1983 claims, and that her other tort claims were insufficient or not applicable under respondeat superior. The District Court denied NHCC's motion, affirming the validity of the early right-to-sue letter, finding sufficient pleading for First Amendment, Equal Protection, and marital status discrimination claims, and concluding that NHCC could be held liable for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under respondeat superior.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIICivil Rights ActFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionMarital Status DiscriminationAssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRespondeat Superior
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

K.B.J. v. T.J.

This is a contested divorce case where the Wife appealed the trial court's decision concerning primary residential parent, allocation of marital debt, and denial of spousal support. The trial court had found the Husband guilty of inappropriate marital conduct but made him the primary residential parent and denied spousal support to the Wife, while allocating significant marital debt to her. The appellate court reversed the decision on primary residential parent status and parenting schedule, designating the Wife as the primary residential parent with final decision-making authority. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the allocation of marital debt to the Wife and the denial of spousal support, citing the Husband's financial burden and the Wife's earning capacity. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine child support based on the modified parenting schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital DebtSpousal SupportAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPrimary Residential ParentParenting TimeFinancial Responsibility
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,808 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