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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1991

Davis v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.

Plaintiff James M. Davis was injured after falling from scaffolding while employed by Arthur Barber, Jr., a subcontractor to Pizzagalli Construction Company, which was hired by Chemung County. Davis and his wife filed damage actions against the defendants, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability for failure to provide proper protection for workers at risk due to elevation differentials. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but on appeal, the court found that Davis's uncontradicted testimony established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a scaffold board "kicked up" causing his fall. Defendants' mere speculation and the unwitnessed nature of the fall were deemed insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order.

Scaffolding AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightProximate Cause
References
13
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wali v. One Source Co.

Plaintiff Abdul Karim Wali sued his former employer, One-Source, Inc., and two human resources employees, Gi Corderzo and Terry Vidal, alleging termination based on race, color, and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Wali was a temporary employee terminated at the conclusion of his assignment, not due to discrimination. The court found Wali failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, lacking evidence that similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably. Furthermore, even if a prima facie case was established, Wali failed to show that the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reason (temporary employment) was a pretext for discrimination. The claim of religious discrimination was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and individual claims against Cordero and Vidal were dismissed as Title VII does not provide for individual liability. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Wali's claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationReligious Discrimination Claim DismissedPro Se LitigationDisparate TreatmentPretextual ReasonExhaustion of Remedies
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John and Vincent Arduini Inc. v. Nynex

This case involves a motion for reconsideration and certification for interlocutory appeal filed by Defendants NYNEX against Plaintiff John and Vincent Arduini, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Cleaning Co. Heritage alleged discriminatory retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, defamation, and prima facie tort, stemming from alleged racial bias by a NYNEX property manager. The Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the defamation and prima facie tort claims due to insufficient admissible evidence and failure to prove special damages, respectively. It also partially granted summary judgment on the § 1981 claim concerning the early termination of one contract, finding Plaintiff failed to show pretext. However, the Court denied reconsideration of its prior ruling on Plaintiff's standing under § 1981 and on other § 1981 claims related to contract bidding, finding material issues of fact. Crucially, the Court granted Defendants' motion to certify the question of Plaintiff's standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, staying all further proceedings.

DiscriminationRetaliationSection 1981StandingInterlocutory AppealReconsiderationDefamationPrima Facie TortSummary JudgmentCorporate Standing
References
44
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,959 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