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 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stokes v. Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim in 1999 for repetitive-motion injuries, and the case was initially closed in February 2000 by a WCLJ who found an occupational disease but no prima facie evidence of permanency, allowing for reopening. The case was reopened in 2001 to include shoulder injuries, leading to the involvement of prior employers General Motors Corporation and ITT Automotive for Workers’ Compensation Law § 44 apportionment. In 2003, claimant was deemed permanently partially disabled, and liability was apportioned, with all employers subsequently filing claims for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The WCLJ later determined that the case was "truly closed" in February 2000, making the reimbursement claims timely, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this determination. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the case was indeed truly closed in February 2000, which made the employers' reimbursement claims timely, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Motion InjuryCase ReopeningPermanency AssessmentApportionmentSpecial Disability FundTimeliness of ClaimWorkers’ Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theresa J. v. Patricia J.

This case involves an appeal in a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, where the respondent mother was accused of neglecting her three children due to drug misuse. Evidence presented included the mother testing positive for cocaine during childbirth, her admission to occasional cocaine use, and the premature birth and death of one child due to renal failure. While the majority found a prima facie case of neglect warranting a continued fact-finding hearing, the dissenting justice argued that a prima facie case was not established, citing a lack of proof for repeated drug misuse or a direct causal link between the mother's drug use and the child's impairment or death. Both the majority and dissent agreed to remand the case for further proceedings, especially considering a potential subsequent drug arrest of the respondent.

NeglectChild ProtectionDrug MisuseCocainePremature BirthInfant DeathPrima Facie CaseRemandFamily Court ActAppeal
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Philip M.

This case concerns respondent parents found responsible for the sexual abuse of two of their children, Philip and Belit, based on evidence of chlamydia infection. The petitioner, Department of the Social Services (CWA), established a prima facie case of child abuse under Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The parents denied knowledge of the abuse and offered insufficient explanations for Belit's injuries, while also disputing positive chlamydia test results for Brandon and Philip and failing to provide prescribed medication or follow-up care. The court found that the parents failed to rebut the prima facie case, leading to an order placing the children under CWA supervision. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, which had upheld the Family Court's decision.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseChlamydia InfectionFamily Court Act Article 10Prima Facie CaseBurden of ProofRes Ipsa LoquiturParental CulpabilityMedical EvidenceChild Welfare Administration
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 16,941 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