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

D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff Neil V. D’Lima, D.D.S., commenced an employment discrimination action against Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc. and its CEO, Andrew H. Boser, III, alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin (Indian), violations of the NYHRL, ADA, slander per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Additionally, the slander per se claim was partially granted regarding statements made by Boser to Kerling due to qualified privilege. However, the motion was denied for the slander per se claim concerning statements made by Boser to Glover and claims where Glover acted under the employer's express authority, as well as the NYHRL claim against Boser. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNYHRLADATitle VIISlander Per SeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Griffin

This case concerns a defendant charged with robbery and attempted robbery. The trial court relieved the defendant's Legal Aid counsel, David Cohen, without consulting the defendant, citing delays attributed to the defense. However, the appellate court noted that the prosecution had also requested numerous adjournments, leading to delays. The court ruled that discharging counsel without defendant's input was an abuse of discretion and infringed upon the defendant's constitutional right to counsel of choice. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that this error was per se reversible and not waived by the defendant's guilty plea.

Right to CounselIndigent DefenseAbuse of DiscretionAttorney-Client RelationshipTrial ManagementAdjournment RequestCriminal ProcedureDue ProcessJudicial InterferenceLegal Aid Society
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Pezhman v. City of New York

Plaintiff, a teaching fellow, alleged that her principal, Young, retaliated against her after she complained about her work environment. Young requested a medical examination of the plaintiff and later recommended her termination, citing various behavioral and performance issues. Plaintiff was subsequently terminated and commenced a lawsuit pro se, alleging defamation based on statements made by Young in letters to education officials. The lower court dismissed the defamation claims. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for defamation per se and that the allegations of malice were sufficient to overcome a qualified privilege, thus reinstating the defamation claims against the Department of Education.

DefamationRetaliationQualified PrivilegeMalicePro Se LitigationCPLR 3211CPLR 3016Teacher MisconductEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. Docket No. 8
Regular Panel Decision

Desano v. Blossom South, LLC

This case involves a lawsuit alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and a state law claim for libel per se. The Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, claimed that confidential medical information was improperly disclosed in violation of ADA confidentiality provisions. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all federal claims and the state law claim. The Court dismissed the FMLA claims (First, Second, and Fourth causes of action) but allowed the ADA claim and the state law libel per se claim (Third and Fifth causes of action) to proceed, finding a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4).

FMLA violationsADA violationsLibel per seMotion to dismissConfidentiality of medical informationEmployer inquiryJob-related functionsSupplemental jurisdictionPlausibility standardRule 12(b)(6)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shamir v. Farash Corp.

Plaintiffs initiated an action for direct and derivative claims after plaintiff husband was injured in a fall from a scaffold during electrical work at a renovation site. They sued Farash Corporation, the general contractor, for negligence and Labor Law violations. Farash Corporation impleaded its subcontractor, Per-Con Electric Corp., seeking common-law indemnification. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment regarding Farash Corporation's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the Appellate Division reversed the denial of Farash Corporation's motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint, thereby entitling Farash Corporation to common-law indemnification from Per-Con Electric Corp. for its exclusive supervision and control of the worksite and safety devices.

Scaffold fallLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentCommon-law indemnificationGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityWorkplace injuryElectrical workRenovation siteAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aronson v. Wiersma

This defamation action involves a plaintiff, a former legislative assistant for the City of Mount Vernon City Council, appealing the dismissal of her complaint. The plaintiff sued the City Council President for libel, based on a letter expressing dissatisfaction with her performance, and for slander, based on oral statements made by the defendant. Special Term initially denied the motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed, directing dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law and did not constitute slander per se, particularly without proof of special damages, which the plaintiff failed to establish.

DefamationLibelSlanderEmployment TerminationPublic Officer ImmunityAbsolute PrivilegeSpecial DamagesAppellate ReviewCause of ActionPleading Requirements
References
21
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01369 [194 AD3d 92]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Sagaille v. Carrega

This case addresses whether a sexual assault victim can face a defamation lawsuit based solely on her report to the police. The lower court had found that such reports were presumptively malicious, a ruling that the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed. The Appellate Division stated there is no legal basis to infer actual malice simply from the nature of sexual assault accusations. The court emphasized that such a presumption would undermine the qualified privilege protecting victims and deter them from reporting sexual assaults. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the defamation and libel per se claims against the defendant, Christina Carrega, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

DefamationSexual AssaultQualified PrivilegeActual MalicePolice ReportsVictim RightsAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintFirst DepartmentJudiciary Law
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04379 [32 NY3d 982]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Natasha W. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, dismissing the petition in a case where Natasha W. was placed on the Child Abuse Register for attempted shoplifting with her five-year-old child. The Court found a rational basis for the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the child was in imminent risk of impairment due to maltreatment and that Natasha W.'s actions were relevant to childcare employment. The dissent argued that there was no 'imminent danger' as required by statute and that the ALJ's prediction of future harm was speculative and lacked factual basis, criticizing the majority for creating a per se rule of neglect without specific proof of harm.

Child MaltreatmentShoplifting IncidentAdministrative ReviewRational Basis TestArbitrary and CapriciousImminent DangerChild Neglect DefinitionFamily Court ActSocial Services LawChild Abuse Register
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sorbello

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of felony murder and robbery. The primary issue on appeal is the application of CPL 240.75, which allows for harmless error analysis in cases of Rosario rule violations, replacing the previous per se reversal rule. The court determined that CPL 240.75 applies retroactively to all appeals heard after its effective date. Finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure of Rosario material materially contributed to the trial's outcome, the court deemed the error harmless. Additionally, the judgment was modified to mandate concurrent sentences for the murder and robbery convictions, as the robbery served as the predicate felony for the murder charge.

Criminal Procedure LawRosario RuleHarmless Error AnalysisStatutory RetroactivityFelony MurderRobbery Second DegreeSentence ConcurrencyAppellate Division DecisionDiscovery Rule ViolationWitness Impeachment
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 5,553 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