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
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

This proceeding sought to annul a determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The petitioner alleged racial discrimination by Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers, Local No. 135. The court ruled that a prior Federal District Court dismissal of the petitioner's identical discrimination claim against the same defendants, under federal law, barred the instant state action based on the doctrine of res judicata. The elements required for establishing a prima facie case in both federal and state actions were deemed nearly identical. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supported the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination.

Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRes JudicataExecutive LawPrior AdjudicationState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardNew YorkFederal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carthew v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Christopher Carthew sued Suffolk County and several police entities/officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to train, and due process violations, along with state law claims, following his July 2006 arrest for violating an order of protection against his wife, Beth Carthew. The plaintiff alleged lack of probable cause for his arrest after he entered a commercial building he claimed was his business, despite knowing his wife, who had an order of protection against him, was present. The court found that Officer Vezzi had probable cause to arrest Carthew, based on his wife's complaint, the confirmed order of protection, and Carthew's admission of entering the building knowing his wife was inside, thus dismissing the federal § 1983 claims. Even if probable cause were lacking, Officer Vezzi was entitled to qualified immunity because officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether probable cause existed. Consequently, the federal claims against Suffolk County (Monell claims) were also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityProbable CauseOrder of Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Summary JudgmentMonell ClaimFederal ClaimsState Law Claims
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2007

State v. Dove

A hearing was held to determine if the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management, presided over by Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J. The respondent argued a lack of proper notice under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e), sought to strike statements from the psychiatric examiner, and requested redaction of hearsay within Dr. Lynch's report. The court dismissed the notice-related arguments as moot after proof of delivery was submitted, but granted the redaction of victim statements from presentence and parole reports, citing unreliable multiple hearsay. The court denied challenges to Dr. Lynch's actuarial test results and rejected the respondent's proposed 'more probable than not' standard for probable cause, instead affirming 'reasonable cause to believe.' Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner established probable cause to believe the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management.

Civil ManagementProbable Cause StandardHearsay EvidenceDue Process RightsMental Hygiene Law Article 10Psychiatric EvaluationActuarial Risk AssessmentBusiness Records ExceptionJurisdictionNotice Requirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheeks v. City of New York

Plaintiff Tatiana Cheeks sued the City of New York for false arrest and malicious prosecution after she was arrested for the death of her infant daughter, Cha-Nell, who died of malnutrition in 1998. Detective Donald Faust arrested Cheeks based on a medical examiner's autopsy report concluding malnutrition without an internal medical explanation, inferring parental neglect. Cheeks contended she diligently fed her daughter, and her expert proposed a 'failure to thrive' syndrome. A jury initially found no probable cause for the arrest, but the appellate court found that probable cause existed as a matter of law based on the autopsy report and Cheeks's sole caregiver status. Ultimately, the court reversed the jury's judgment for the plaintiff and remanded for a new trial due to the trial court's error in excluding part of the autopsy report (stating 'homicide (parental neglect)') after the plaintiff's counsel 'opened the door' to questioning about medical defects. The dissenting justices argued the issue of probable cause was for the jury and that the exclusion of the 'parental neglect' statement was proper.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionProbable CauseMalnutrition DeathParental NeglectAutopsy ReportMedical Examiner FindingsExpert Witness TestimonyFailure to Thrive SyndromeAppellate Review
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03395 [217 AD3d 1237]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2023

Matter of Cagino v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Petitioner Paul F. Cagino appealed the dismissal of his application to review a New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) determination. SDHR found no probable cause regarding Cagino's claim that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) engaged in retaliatory employment practices. Cagino, a former OAG employee, alleged that OAG's statements in court papers during a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) proceeding constituted adverse employment action. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, ruling that OAG's statements were legitimate defensive measures in litigation, not unlawful retaliation. The court concluded that SDHR's no probable cause finding was rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

RetaliationDiscriminationFreedom of Information Law (FOIL)Adverse Employment ActionHuman Rights LawProbable CauseAppellate ReviewDefensive LitigationPublic Officers LawEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2009

Lewis v. Caputo

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a false arrest claim. The plaintiff was arrested for criminal possession of a stolen laptop after a coworker recorded incriminating statements. The New York County District Attorney charged the plaintiff, but the charge was later dismissed. The plaintiff then sued Joseph Caputo, a deputy inspector general, for false arrest and was awarded $50,000 by a jury. The dissenting judge argues that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on circumstantial evidence, including the plaintiff's recorded conversation expressing anger at "snitches" and his tearing up a written statement. The dissenting opinion asserts that the jury's verdict should be reversed and the complaint dismissed because the evidence established probable cause as a matter of law.

False ArrestProbable CauseStolen PropertyCriminal PossessionCircumstantial EvidencePolice InvestigationJury VerdictCivil SuitNew York CountyDissenting Opinion
References
45
Case No. 01 Cr. 1004 (NG)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2001

United States v. Agnello

The defendants, including New York Shredding Corp. and Carmine Agnello, moved to suppress electronic surveillance evidence and requested a Franks v. Delaware hearing. They alleged that the underlying eavesdropping warrant application contained false statements or reckless omissions regarding property ownership and probable cause. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy recommended denying the motion, concluding that sufficient probable cause existed for the warrant even without the disputed "rent" conversations, citing corroborated confidential informant information, detective expertise, and other intercepted communications. District Judge Nina Gershon adopted the Report and Recommendation, thereby denying the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence.

Electronic SurveillanceProbable CauseFranks HearingMotion to SuppressWiretapFourth AmendmentAffiantReckless Disregard for TruthVehicle TheftChop Shop
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 4,410 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