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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00299 [234 AD3d 581]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2025

Silva v. 770 Broadway Owner LLC

In this case, Carlito Silva, the plaintiff, was injured when a ladder fell and struck him while he was working. He brought an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against 770 Broadway Owner, LLC, Facebook, Inc., and L & K Partners, Inc. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied Silva's cross-motion. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that the plaintiff did establish his prima facie case. The court held that the elevation differential was not de minimis and the ladder was not adequately secured, rejecting arguments of foreseeability and intervening causes. The matter was subsequently remanded for further consideration of third-party claims involving Consolidated Carpet Workroom, LLC.

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentSummary JudgmentLadder FallThird-Party ClaimsAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyForeseeabilityProximate CauseElevation Differential
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Probst v. 11 West 42 Realty Investors, LLC

The case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, regarding personal injuries and alleged Labor Law violations. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Defendants cross-appealed the denial of their cross-motion to dismiss Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 202 causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that while plaintiffs presented a prima facie case for Labor Law § 240 (1), a triable issue of fact existed regarding the injured plaintiff's conduct as the sole proximate cause. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to dismiss the Labor Law claims, as questions remained concerning the availability of adequate safety devices and proximate causation. The decision highlighted that a plaintiff cannot be solely at fault if a statutory violation contributes to the injury.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseElevation RiskSafety DevicesWindow CleaningAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of Fact
References
12
Case No. 2024-03315 (Index No. 607523/22)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2026

Chiriboga-Herrera v. Litt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a personal injury and wrongful death action after a worker, William Orlando Barzallo-Diaz, was fatally struck by a falling beam at a construction site. Plaintiffs, co-administrators of the decedent's estate, alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence against property owner Marty Litt. The Supreme Court granted Litt's motion for summary judgment, citing the homeowner's exemption and lack of supervision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision for plaintiff Joselyn Natalia Chiriboga-Herrara, finding that Litt failed to establish, prima facie, his entitlement to the homeowner's exemption and failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding his supervision and control of the work. The court also found Litt failed to make a prima facie showing for dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawHomeowner's ExemptionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMeans and MethodsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathNondelegable Duty
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04648 [219 AD3d 1393]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2023

Alliance Natl. Ins. Co. v. Hagler

This case involves an action brought by Alliance National Insurance Company (plaintiff) against Daryl Hagler and other defendants for breach of contract and on an account stated, stemming from alleged unpaid Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability policy payments. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and for a declaratory judgment regarding "Loss Funding obligations." However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this judgment. The appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment on the account stated cause of action due to insufficient proof of invoice mailing and receipt. Additionally, the plaintiff could not demonstrate prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the breach of contract claims, failing to properly calculate premiums for some defendants and unable to prove a contractual obligation for administrative fees for others. The court also noted that the declaratory relief granted was not requested in the pleadings.

Breach of ContractAccount StatedSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PoliciesLoss Funding ObligationsAppellate ReviewPrima Facie CaseInvoice MailingContractual Obligation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cross v. CCL Custom Manufacturing, Inc.

Plaintiff Peggy Cross sued CCL Custom Manufacturing, Inc. under Title VII, alleging disparate treatment where supervisors gave preferential treatment to similarly situated employees outside of her protected classification. Cross, an African-American female, was discharged for gross insubordination after refusing a direct order to stand on an assembly line. CCL moved for summary judgment, arguing Cross failed to establish a prima facie case and that her comparators were not similarly situated or were also minorities. The Court, presided over by District Judge Donald, found that Cross demonstrated a prima facie case, especially concerning the comparison with a Hispanic assembler who also committed insubordination but was not terminated. The Court denied CCL's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Elaina Martinez received preferential treatment on racial grounds, thus failing to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseRacial DiscriminationInsubordinationWork RulesSimilarly SituatedPretext
References
23
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06233
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Wright v. Pennings

The plaintiff, Brian P. Wright, sustained personal injuries when an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder fell and struck him while a coworker was installing wiring. The ladder slipped on a rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff established prima facie that the unsecured ladder violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused his injuries. The court also found the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 claims, and the common-law negligence claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) when replaced by an older worker. The Court held that for a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must demonstrate replacement by someone younger. Because Gloria Garcia, who was 48 when fired, was replaced by a three-year older Mexican-American woman, she failed to meet this requirement. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and dismissed Garcia's age discrimination suit, clarifying that while direct evidence of discrimination remains an option, the prima facie presumption is not available in such replacement cases.

Age DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Prima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting FrameworkReplacement by Older WorkerSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionJurisdictional FactsDirect EvidenceEmployment Law
References
27
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,778 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