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

Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corp.

This case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation brought by Plaintiff Tonia Cush-Crawford against Defendant Adchem Corp. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on her hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII, awarding $0 in compensatory damages but $100,000 in punitive damages. The Defendant moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the punitive damages award, arguing that punitive damages cannot be awarded without compensatory damages, an issue of first impression in this circuit. The Court denied the Defendant's motion, ruling that an award of compensatory damages is not a prerequisite for punitive damages in Title VII cases. The Plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages was also denied, and the Court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Plaintiff.

Title VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesFederal Civil RightsEmployment LawRule 50 MotionRule 59 Motion
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Globe Insurance v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp.

Plaintiff, an insurer named Royal, sued its insured, Chock Full O'Nuts Corporation, for unpaid insurance premiums and service charges. Chock counterclaimed, alleging unfair claim settlement practices under Insurance Law § 40-d, breach of contractual and fiduciary duties, and sought punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Special Term dismissed the fourth counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim for punitive damages, holding that Insurance Law § 40-d does not create a private right of action for punitive damages, and such damages require a showing of morally culpable and wanton dishonesty beyond mere breach of contract or negligence. The court also found attorneys' fees were not recoverable. The lower court's order was modified to remove the option for Chock to replead the punitive damages counterclaim.

Punitive DamagesInsurance Law § 40-dBreach of ContractUnfair Claims PracticesPrivate Right of ActionAppellate ReviewCounterclaim DismissalFiduciary DutyNegligenceAttorneys' Fees
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laurie Marie M. v. Jeffrey T. M.

This appeal concerns a civil action for intrafamilial child sex abuse, where an 11-year-old stepdaughter was sexually abused by her stepfather. The trial court found the defendant liable for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the jury awarding $200,000 in compensatory damages and $275,000 in punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability for battery but deemed both compensatory and punitive damage awards excessive. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a reduction of compensatory damages to $100,000 and punitive damages to $100,000. If the plaintiff stipulates to these reductions, the judgment, as amended, will be affirmed.

Child sex abuseIntrafamilial abuseBatteryIntentional infliction of emotional distressPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesExcessive verdictDamages reductionAppellate reviewStepfather abuse
References
0
Case No. CA 14-02232
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

SVENSON, ERIC, MTR. OF

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment that partially vacated an arbitration award. Petitioners, Eric and Marcelle L. Svenson, and respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, were involved in a property dispute over the removal of maple trees. An arbitrator awarded respondents treble and punitive damages for trespass. The Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, vacated the punitive damages but confirmed the rest of the award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting petitioners' arguments that they were estopped from appealing, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, and that treble damages were punitive. The court held that an arbitrator's factual and substantive law resolutions are generally not reviewable and that RPAPL 861 treble damages are not inherently punitive.

Arbitration AwardVacating ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesTrespass LawProperty Boundary DisputeAppellate Court DecisionCivil ProcedureReal Property LawJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Syrnik v. Polones Construction Corp.

In this memorandum decision and order, the Court addresses defendant Polonés Construction Corporation's motion for a new trial regarding damages awarded to plaintiff Yurek Syrnik. Following a jury trial on discrimination claims under federal and New York state/city laws, Syrnik was awarded $105,981.27 in economic damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The defendant sought a new trial, challenging both the fact and amount of the punitive damages. The Court denied the motion, finding the defendant's conduct reprehensible and the punitive damages award, which represented a less-than 5:1 ratio to economic damages, was reasonable and not excessive given the circumstances and comparable legal precedents, especially under the New York City Human Rights Law.

DiscriminationPunitive DamagesNew Trial MotionFederal Civil ProcedureEmployment LawJury VerdictCivil Rights ActReprehensibilityExcessive DamagesEconomic Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiff Ronald West was injured in 1991 when a 16" Goodyear tire he was mounting exploded on a 16.5" Budd wheel. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, alleging defendants knew of the mismatch problem, failed to provide alternatives or warnings, and acted recklessly. Defendants moved to strike the punitive damages claim, treated as a motion for summary judgment. The court applied New York's demanding standard for punitive damages, requiring conduct "close to criminality." Despite defendants' knowledge of prior mismatch incidents and trade association discussions, the court found their actions, including size-stamping products and educational efforts, did not meet the standard of wanton or reckless disregard. The motion for summary judgment on punitive damages was granted, and the claim was dismissed.

Product LiabilityPunitive DamagesTire ExplosionManufacturing DefectWarning DefectSummary JudgmentReckless ConductMoral CulpabilityIndustry StandardsMismatch Hazard
References
14
Case No. 09-cv-6053(PGG)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2012

MacMillan v. Millennium Broadway Hotel

Plaintiff Freddrick McMillan sued Defendant Millennium Broadway Hotel alleging racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the NYCHRL. A jury awarded him $125,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The Court denied the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. However, it granted a new trial on damages unless McMillan accepts a remittitur, reducing compensatory damages to $30,000 and punitive damages to $100,000, citing sparse evidence of emotional distress and constitutional limits on punitive awards.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981NYCHRLRemittiturCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesWorkplace HarassmentEmotional Distress
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Minjak Co. v. Randolph

A landlord initiated a nonpayment proceeding against tenants Randolph and Kikuchi for a loft space in Manhattan. The tenants counterclaimed for breach of warranty of habitability, partial constructive eviction, and sought punitive damages and attorney's fees due to severe conditions caused by landlord's renovations and a fifth-floor tenant's business, rendering two-thirds of the loft (music studio) unusable. A Civil Court jury awarded significant rent abatements and $20,000 in punitive damages, later reduced to $5,000, and $5,000 in attorney's fees. The Appellate Term reversed, holding constructive eviction required full abandonment and striking punitive damages. This court reversed the Appellate Term, affirming the doctrine of partial constructive eviction, reinstating the punitive damages award (as reduced by the Civil Court), and confirming the award of attorney's fees, with a minor adjustment to the rent abatement period.

Constructive EvictionPartial EvictionWarranty of HabitabilityPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesNonpayment ProceedingLandlord-Tenant LawResidential LoftsBuilding RenovationsTenant Rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cioffi v. New York Community Bank

Rose Cioffi, a former employee of New York Community Bank (NYCB), sued the bank for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation leading to constructive discharge under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. While the jury found in favor of NYCB on the sexual harassment claims, it ruled in favor of Cioffi on the retaliation-constructive discharge claim, awarding her $125,000 for back pay and $195,000 in punitive damages. NYCB moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence for constructive discharge and excessive punitive damages. The court denied NYCB's motions, upholding the jury's verdict by concluding there was sufficient evidence for constructive discharge and that the punitive damages award was not excessive. The court also granted plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest on the back pay award at the federal rate, while denying prejudgment interest on punitive damages and the motion to amend the caption.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentPunitive DamagesAttorney FeesPrejudgment InterestTitle VIIFederal Civil Procedure
References
79
Showing 1-10 of 1,892 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