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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2005

Peter T. v. Children's Village, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Children's Village, Inc. (CV) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The plaintiff, a former resident of CV, alleged sexual molestation by a volunteer, Samuel Toffel, who followed another youth from Westchester County Health Care Corporation (WCHCC) to CV. The plaintiff, through his legal guardian, sued CV for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, respondeat superior, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment only on the negligent hiring claim. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment dismissing the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action against CV, but denied dismissing the negligent retention and supervision claim, finding a triable issue of fact regarding CV's knowledge of Toffel's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AbuseNegligent SupervisionRespondeat SuperiorBreach of Fiduciary DutyEmotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer MisconductInstitutional Negligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arroyo v. Westlb Administration, Inc.

Ricardo Arroyo, a Hispanic male, sued WestLB Administration, Inc. and West-deutsche Landesbank for racial discrimination and unlawful termination under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention of an employee. Arroyo claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and threats from a coworker, Neil Williamson, over a period of two years, leading to his constructive discharge. The Bank moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the alleged incidents, though offensive, were isolated and sporadic, not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under Title VII. Consequently, the claims for hostile work environment and constructive discharge were dismissed. The claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention were also dismissed as barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentUnlawful TerminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIConstructive DischargeNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent RetentionWorkers' Compensation Law ExclusivityFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
25
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05950
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2021

Dojce v. 1302 Realty Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Petrika Dojce, was injured by a power saw while working for an employer hired by 1302 Realty Company, LLC's tenant. Dojce sued 1302 Realty, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), including negligent supervision, retention, and hiring, and injuries such as psychosis. The Supreme Court of Kings County denied 1302 Realty's motion to strike negligent supervision claims, granted Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and granted Dojce's motion to strike certain deposition testimony. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by granting 1302 Realty's motion to strike the negligent supervision, retention, and hiring claims due to lack of evidence. The Appellate Division also denied Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely, as it was filed months after the deadline and raised different issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the striking of Francesco Pedulla's deposition testimony as an appropriate remedy for improperly obtained evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionDeposition TestimonyUntimely MotionIndustrial CodeWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2000

T. W. v. City of New York

This personal injury action arises from the sexual assault of an infant plaintiff by Anthony Monroe, an employee of the Police Athletic League (PAL) at a community center. Plaintiffs sued PAL for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for PAL, dismissing the complaint. However, the appellate court modified the decision, denying summary judgment on the claims of negligent hiring and retention, and negligent supervision of the children. The court found that factual issues existed regarding PAL's duty to investigate Monroe's criminal background, given its knowledge of a prior conviction, and its duty to supervise the children.

Negligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSexual AssaultPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCriminal Background CheckEmployer LiabilityProximate CauseYouth Programs
References
8
Case No. No. 11-19-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Mark Wheeler, Cindy Wheeler, Jeremy Rich, and David Kiser v. Brandon Scott Free, Ringo Drilling I, L.P., and Ringo Management Company, L.L.C.

This is a personal injury case stemming from a single-vehicle accident involving Appellants Mark Wheeler, Jeremy Rich, and David Kiser, who were passengers, and Brandon Scott Free, the driver. All parties were employees of Appellees Ringo Drilling I, L.P. and Ringo Management Company, L.L.C. (collectively Ringo), and were traveling to a drill site. Appellants sued Free for negligence and Ringo for vicarious liability under respondeat superior and direct liability for negligent hiring, training, and retention. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ringo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Free was not in the course and scope of his employment for vicarious liability purposes and that Ringo owed no duty to Appellants for Free's off-duty and off-premises conduct related to negligent hiring/retention claims.

Personal InjuryVehicle AccidentNegligenceRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyCourse and Scope of Employment
References
31
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08017 [192 AD3d 91]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.

Eduardo Sandoval, a nonverbal autistic resident, suffered burns from a heated potato masher at a residential facility operated by Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (L&W). His co-guardians sued L&W, its employees Asialone Edwards and Wendell Chavies, alleging battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The Supreme Court denied L&W's and Edwards' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing claims against L&W based on respondeat superior, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims, and for Edwards' individual claims. The court highlighted L&W's failure to adequately check employee references and that the potential for abuse was foreseeable based on L&W's own training materials.

Negligent hiringNegligent retentionNegligent supervisionNegligent trainingRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentAutismResidential facilityEmployee misconductPropensity to commit injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. United States

Plaintiff Deanna Dozier Park Cooper sued the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for emotional distress after a postal worker, Ronald Eudy, allegedly exposed his genitalia to her. Cooper claimed negligent hiring and retention of Eudy by the United States and sought to hold the government liable under a theory of respondeat superior, arguing Eudy was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendant, United States, filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing lack of liability based on the discretionary function exception of the FTCA for hiring and retention decisions, and asserting that Eudy's alleged actions were outside the scope of his employment. The Court granted the Defendant's motions, dismissing the negligent hiring and retention claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim, finding Eudy's conduct was outside the scope of employment. A motion to stay discovery was also granted.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorDiscretionary Function ExceptionScope of EmploymentEmotional DistressPostal WorkerSummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,773 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