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
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garti v. Salvation Army

The claimant alleged a work-related injury while moving a couch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence, allowing the case to proceed. The employer and its carrier appealed this interlocutory finding to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which refused review and imposed a penalty, citing 12 NYCRR 300.38 (g)(3)(i). The Board determined that findings of prima facie medical evidence are interlocutory and not reviewable at that stage. The employer then appealed to this Court, challenging the regulation and the penalty. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concurring that the WCLJ's finding of prima facie medical evidence is an interlocutory decision and not immediately appealable, affirming the Board's interpretation of the regulation and deeming the challenge to the penalty premature.

Workers' Compensation LawPrima Facie Medical EvidenceInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissalRegulatory ComplianceNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeCausal RelationshipPenalty for Delay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrington v. Hudson Valley Fruit Juice, Inc.

The claimant's decedent, a factory laborer, suffered an unwitnessed intracerebral hemorrhage at work and subsequently died. The employer controverted the claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A WCLJ initially closed the case for lack of prima facie medical evidence, but a subsequent WCLJ reopened and found sufficient medical evidence based on the presumption of compensability in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). The Workers’ Compensation Board then rescinded this decision, ruling that claimant's medical reports did not constitute prima facie evidence of a causal relationship. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in requiring prima facie medical evidence in this unwitnessed death case, compelling the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption. The Court also noted that the employer had not presented evidence to rebut this presumption. The decision of the Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntracerebral HemorrhageUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of CompensabilityCausal RelationshipPrima Facie Medical EvidenceBoard ErrorReversalRemittalDeath Benefits Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyman v. Schwartz

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss several counterclaims filed by defendant Arthur Schwartz. Plaintiff, identified as Hyman from prior related cases, initially sued Schwartz and his law firm for legal malpractice and emotional distress. Schwartz, a licensed attorney who previously represented Hyman, subsequently asserted four counterclaims: breach of contract, quantum meruit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court denied Hyman's motion to dismiss these counterclaims. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order. It affirmed the denial of dismissal for the quantum meruit counterclaim, finding Schwartz adequately stated a cause of action. However, the appellate court reversed the denial and dismissed the counterclaims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort, concluding that documentary evidence contradicted the breach of contract claim and the alleged conduct for emotional distress and prima facie tort did not meet the required legal thresholds. The court also affirmed the denial of Hyman's motion to renew her claims regarding proper service on Schwartz's former partners, Stuart Lichten and Daniel Bright.

Legal MalpracticeCounterclaimsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureService of Process
References
35
Case No. dkt. no. 42
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. Purcell Construction Corp.

Plaintiff filed an action against her employer and two co-workers, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination under Title VII and the ADA, retaliation, tortious interference, and prima facie tort. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment. While hostile work environment, discrimination, tortious interference, and prima facie tort claims were dismissed, the Title VII and ADA retaliation claims against the employer, Purcell Construction Corp., were allowed to proceed. The court also considered the availability of punitive damages for the surviving retaliation claims.

Title VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActHostile Work EnvironmentDiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtSexual HarassmentDisability Discrimination
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2004

Pierce v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.

The plaintiff, a mortgage loan officer, alleged that the defendants violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating his employment while on FMLA leave and denying him approximately $400,000 in commissions. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion, finding that commissions are not considered "employment benefits" under FMLA. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, as the defendants had decided to terminate his employment before he requested FMLA leave. Even if a prima facie case was made, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, such as customer complaints and unprofessional conduct, were provided by the defendants.

FMLARetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment BenefitsCommissionsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitCausal ConnectionLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonsPretextual Reasons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2006

Diaz v. White Plains Coat & Apron Co.

Manuel Diaz, a laundry worker, was injured after falling from a laundry bin while employed in a building owned by White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. He initiated an action for personal injuries against the defendant, predicated on premises liability. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case and sought to amend its answer to include a Workers' Compensation defense, arguing surprise due to a shift in the plaintiff's theory of liability to negligent supervision. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case was granted, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Premises LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPrima Facie CaseMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJury VerdictInterlocutory JudgmentNew York LawPersonal Injury Damages
References
3
Case No. 96 Civ. 7513
Regular Panel Decision

Tarshis v. Riese Organization

Plaintiff Fred Tarshis filed an action against The Riese Organization, alleging age, race, and national origin discrimination under the ADEA, Title VII, and NYSHRL, respectively, and a claim under the New York State Constitution. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on all discrimination claims, finding that although plaintiff established a prima facie case, he failed to provide sufficient evidence that defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination were pretextual. The court noted the weakness of the plaintiff's prima facie case regarding age discrimination, as his replacement was believed to be older. The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his claim under the New York State Constitution, which was dismissed with prejudice.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretextDisparate TreatmentFederal CourtNew York State Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1997

Bellafiore v. L & K Holding Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action brought under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff sustained injuries when a mobile scaffold spontaneously moved, causing it to tip over and crash. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied. The appellate court subsequently reversed this order, granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court determined that the plaintiff presented sufficient prima facie proof through affidavits from himself and a co-worker. The defendants' opposing evidence, which included statements from their president lacking personal knowledge, was deemed inadmissible hearsay and thus failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)mobile scaffoldsummary judgmentliabilityhearsay evidenceappellate procedureconstruction accidentworkplace safetyNassau County
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 954 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