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

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

Hannah v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

The U.S. District Court addressed a diversity action brought by Frank Hannah against Metro-North Commuter Railroad, stemming from his arrest, criminal prosecution, and dismissal from employment. Hannah alleged various common law torts, and Metro-North moved to dismiss based on federal preemption under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and failure to state a claim. Hannah cross-moved to amend his complaint to add civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed several state-law tort claims (malicious prosecution, contract breach, wrongful discharge, libel) with prejudice, citing RLA preemption or plaintiff's concession. However, it denied dismissal for claims of false arrest and prima facie tort related to his initial incarceration, deeming them not preempted. The court granted Hannah's request to file an amended complaint, but specified that the new complaint must align with the opinion, particularly regarding the scope of prima facie tort and civil rights claims against Metro-North for actions beyond the initial arrest. The court denied Metro-North's request for sanctions against Hannah.

Railway Labor ActFederal PreemptionFalse ArrestPrima Facie Tort42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil RightsMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintSubject Matter JurisdictionState Action
References
50
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

Alveari v. American International Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Sandra M. Alveari sued her former employer, American International Group, Inc., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York Executive Law § 296, along with a claim of prima facie tort. The defendant moved to dismiss several counts. The court dismissed Count I, a failure-to-promote claim, as time-barred, rejecting the 'continuing violation' argument due to insufficient factual allegations. Count IV, based on state law, was also dismissed as the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction, citing complexities in state law and potential for delaying the federal claim. Count V, the prima facie tort claim, was dismissed with the plaintiff's consent.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActState Law ClaimsPendent JurisdictionTime-Barred ClaimsContinuing Violation DoctrineMotion to DismissEEOC
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson v. Lindner

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by professional and business entities in Manhattan against various unions and their officers, including the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and George Link. The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an 11-day mass transit strike in April 1980 in New York City. The complaint asserted causes of action based on prima facie tort, public nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the prima facie tort and public nuisance claims, concluding that illegal public employee strikes could give rise to private causes of action for damages. However, the motion to dismiss the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim was granted, as the court found the collective bargaining agreement did not primarily intend to benefit the public to allow private enforcement for consequential damages.

Mass Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor DisputePrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceDamagesClass ActionMotion to DismissTaylor LawUnion Liability
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jody Fair, Inc. v. Dubinsky

Plaintiff Jody Fair, Inc. moved to remand its action from federal court back to the New York State Supreme Court. The defendants, International Ladies Garment Workers Union and Local 25, had removed the case, alleging it involved a claim under the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically section 303(b) concerning secondary boycotts. Plaintiff argued its complaint alleged a common law prima facie tort under New York law, asserting malicious intent by the unions to coerce payment of a debt from a separate entity, Aansworth Ltd., for which Jody Fair, Inc. was not liable. The court granted the motion to remand, ruling that the complaint, fairly read, alleges a prima facie tort at common law and does not necessarily arise under federal labor law. The court also noted that the specific labor activities in question were exempt from federal secondary boycott bans under section 8(e) due to the needle trade exemption, suggesting no federal remedy existed.

Prima Facie TortLabor LawFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionRemand MotionSecondary BoycottNeedle Trade ExemptionLabor Management Relations ActCommon LawUnfair Labor Practice
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montefusco v. Nassau County

John and Yolanda Montefusco filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael Mostow, the Lindenhurst Union Free School District, and its Board of Education, among others. Plaintiff John Montefusco, a school teacher, faced disciplinary charges for 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' after photos he took were found and an investigation suggested voyeurism. Although a hearing panel later dismissed the charges and reinstated Montefusco, he and his wife sued, alleging violations of First Amendment rights, due process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, defamation, malicious prosecution, and loss of consortium. The court granted summary judgment for the moving defendants on most federal claims. Defamation was dismissed with prejudice, while intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort claims were dismissed as time-barred. The First Amendment and due process claims were also dismissed, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Civil RightsSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentDue ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortDefamationMalicious ProsecutionLoss of ConsortiumTeacher Misconduct
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 2,112 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