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
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 The Workers’ Compensation Board then rescinded this decision, ruling that claimant's medical reports did not constitute prima facie evidence of a causal relationship.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
Mar 11, 1992

Gordon v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

Shari Shapiro Gordon, an Orthodox Jewish woman, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against MCI Telecommunications Corp. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Gordon alleged that MCI refused to hire her for a Staff Assistant position due to her need to leave work early on Fridays during the fall and winter for Sabbath observance. MCI moved for summary judgment, contending that Gordon failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating her religious practices would impose an undue hardship. The court denied MCI's motion, finding that Gordon had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude a prima facie case of discrimination. Furthermore, MCI's claims of undue hardship were deemed speculative, lacking concrete evidence regarding actual operational disruptions or financial burdens. The case will proceed to trial.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSabbath ObservanceUndue HardshipReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseFederal District Court
References
17
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
Sep 19, 2013

In Re the Estate of Cameron

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tioga County concerning the probate of William G. Cameron's will. The decedent, while hospitalized, executed a will leaving his estate to his wife, the petitioner. One of his sons, the respondent, filed objections, alleging the will was not duly executed, decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner established a prima facie case for probate and the respondent failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding due execution, testamentary capacity, fraud, or undue influence.

Will ProbateTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceFraudSummary JudgmentAppealSurrogate's CourtAttesting WitnessesDue ExecutionDecedent's Estate
References
13
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06581
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2021

Matter of Amanda YY. v. Faisal ZZ.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed a Family Court order that found Faisal ZZ. (father) in willful violation of a prior child support order. Amanda YY. (mother) had filed a petition alleging the father's non-compliance. The Family Court confirmed the Support Magistrate's willfulness finding and imposed a 30-day suspended jail sentence. The father's arguments regarding inability to pay, judicial bias, and the lack of an English interpreter were rejected by the appellate court. The court found that the father failed to provide competent credible evidence to rebut the prima facie case of willful violation.

Child Support EnforcementWillful ViolationFamily Court Act Article 4Child Support ArrearsSuspended Jail SentenceJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofInability to Pay DefenseRecusal Motion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lahrick L.

Lahrick L., a five-month-old infant, suffered extensive first and second-degree burns while in the custody of the respondents. The petitioner presented prima facie evidence of child neglect based on these injuries. The respondents claimed the child rolled off a bed and came into contact with a hot radiator. However, Dr. Moohr, a pediatrics expert specializing in child abuse burn injuries, refuted this explanation, stating the burn patterns were inconsistent with radiator burns and more consistent with hot liquid splatter. Additionally, a caseworker testified that the radiator in question was cold and inoperable on two separate visits in January 1985. The dissenting judge, Eiber, J., found the respondents' explanation factually insufficient to rebut the petitioner's prima facie showing of neglect and argued that the record contained ample evidence to support a finding of child neglect, urging for a finding of guilt and remittal for a dispositional hearing.

child neglectburn injuriesprima facie evidenceexpert medical testimonydiscrediting parental explanationcircumstantial evidenceFamily Court Actdissenting opinioninfant injuriesburden of proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. IBM

Cindy Holmes, an African-American woman, sued her employer IBM under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination, alleging she was repeatedly denied promotions from Band 3 to Band 4 despite her qualifications, while less qualified Caucasian co-workers were promoted. Holmes presented evidence of supervisors making race-related comments and other instances of disparate treatment, which she argued indicate discriminatory animus. IBM moved for summary judgment, contending Holmes could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, nor could she prove their legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting her were pretextual. The court, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found that Holmes had established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext, including alleged discriminatory comments by supervisors. Therefore, the District Court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment.

DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasPretextPrima Facie CasePromotion Denial42 U.S.C. 1981District Court
References
22
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,957 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