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
Apr 28, 2008

People v. Beauharnois

This case is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of sexual abuse, course of sexual conduct, predatory sexual assault, predatory sexual assault against a child, and endangering the welfare of a child. The conviction stemmed from a victim's testimony detailing years of sexual abuse by the defendant, corroborated by a pediatrician's expert medical testimony. On appeal, the defendant challenged the verdict's weight of evidence and argued that the course of sexual conduct conviction was a lesser included offense of predatory sexual assault. The appellate court affirmed the jury's credibility findings and the medical evidence. It modified the judgment by dismissing the conviction for course of sexual conduct as a lesser included offense, but upheld the conviction for endangering the welfare of a child and the sentences imposed.

Sexual abusePredatory sexual assaultChild endangermentLesser included offenseAppellate reviewVictim credibilityExpert medical testimonyCriminal convictionSentencingJudicial discretion
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Hunt v. State

The claimant, arrested for grand larceny in 1998, was unable to post bail and was sexually assaulted by another inmate while in the Manhattan Detention Center. Despite a court directive for protective custody on September 18, 1998, state court officers failed to properly record this order on the securing order. Consequently, the claimant was returned to general population and assaulted again on September 21. The Court of Claims initially dismissed the claimant's action for damages against the State. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the court officers' failure to record the protective custody order was a breach of a ministerial duty, thereby establishing state liability. The case has been remanded for a trial to determine the damages for the September 21 assault.

Inmate AssaultProtective CustodyMinisterial NegligenceState LiabilityCourt Officer DutySecuring OrderDamages RemandAppellate ReversalCorrectional Facility NegligencePrisoner Safety
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. McClenning

Israel Rodriguez, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, sued corrections officer Daniel McClenning under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rodriguez claimed McClenning sexually assaulted him during a pat-frisk and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. McClenning moved for summary judgment, arguing the sexual assault claim lacked constitutional merit or was protected by qualified immunity, and that the retaliation claim lacked evidence of improper motive. The court denied McClenning's motion, concluding that sexual assault of an inmate by a prison officer violates contemporary Eighth Amendment standards and that qualified immunity does not apply to such conduct. Additionally, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive regarding the misbehavior report to deny summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSexual AssaultQualified ImmunityFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRetaliationCorrectional FacilitySummary Judgment
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns v. City of Utica

Plaintiff Julianne Bums, a firefighter, filed a lawsuit against co-worker Michael Knapp and Municipal Defendants (City of Utica, Armond Festine, Linda Fatata) alleging sexual assault, gender discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy. Her claims stemmed from an alleged sexual assault by Knapp, the subsequent internal investigation, and denial of her disability benefits. The Court dismissed Bums' state-law discrimination claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against all defendants, and Section 1983 and 1985 claims, were dismissed. Plaintiff's assault and battery claim was also dismissed as time-barred, and her husband's derivative loss of consortium claim was consequently dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMunicipal LiabilityIndividual LiabilityCivil Rights ActSection 1983Section 1985 ConspiracyState Law Claims
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Alsaud

Plaintiff Jane Doe sued defendant Mustapha Ouanes for sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This civil action followed Ouanes's criminal conviction for rape, criminal sexual act, sexual abuse, and assault against Jane Doe, stemming from an incident in 2010. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, arguing that Ouanes's criminal conviction conclusively established his liability for the civil claims. After a previous denial, Plaintiff refiled the motion with additional evidence, specifically trial transcripts clarifying that the criminal convictions pertained to Jane Doe. The court found that the issues in both proceedings were identical, the issues were fully litigated, and Ouanes had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the criminal trial. Consequently, Ouanes is collaterally estopped from relitigating his liability in the civil action, leading to the granting of summary judgment on liability.

Sexual AssaultRapeBatteryFalse ImprisonmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentCriminal ConvictionCivil LiabilityForcible Compulsion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Yates

The People moved for a Frye hearing to determine the scientific acceptance of expert testimony on male rape trauma syndrome, which the defendant sought to introduce. The defendant, charged with grand larceny, claimed he was sexually assaulted and that the syndrome explained his failure to report the incident. The court reviewed existing New York case law on rape trauma syndrome for female and child victims, and scientific literature on male sexual assault. It found that male victims exhibit similar post-traumatic stress symptoms to female victims, concluding that male rape trauma syndrome is generally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the court denied the People's motion, ruling that a Frye hearing was not necessary.

Male Rape Trauma SyndromeFrye HearingExpert Testimony AdmissibilitySexual AssaultPosttraumatic Stress DisorderScientific AcceptanceGender Neutral LawEvidence LawCriminal ProcedureSodomy
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

Ackerman v. National Financial Systems

The plaintiff, Diana Benincasa, initiated an action against her former employer, National Financial Systems, Inc. (NFS), Robert Barbarello, and Robert Hernandez, alleging sexual harassment under the New York Human Rights Law and common law assault and battery. The case, originally filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, was removed to federal court. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, but Benincasa consented to the dismissal of assault and battery claims against Barbarello and NFS. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, denied the defendants' remaining summary judgment contentions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Barbarello's alleged sexual harassment, NFS's vicarious liability for Hernandez's conduct, and Benincasa's alleged failure to mitigate damages. Consequently, the case was set for trial.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentSummary judgmentAssault and batteryVicarious liabilityMitigation of damagesNew York Human Rights LawTitle VIIFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBankruptcy trustee
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2001

Carroll v. Bayerische Landesbank

Plaintiff Maureen Carroll filed an action against Bayerische Landesbank, BLB Capital, LLC, and individual defendants, alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws, alongside state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, assault, battery, and defamation. At the close of plaintiff's case during a jury trial, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions concerning sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and assault and battery, allowing these claims to proceed. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Subsequently, the court clarified the interpretation of the employment contract, concluding that its specific conditions were not met, which led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim as well.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationBreach of ContractDefamationAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployment LawRule 50 MotionJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valade v. City of New York

Gina Valade and David Valade initiated a civil rights action against the City of New York, its Police Department, Officer Evrody Seide, and other unidentified officers, alleging false arrest, unlawful strip search, excessive force, sexual assault, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment on claims of false arrest, unlawful strip search, and malicious prosecution, finding probable cause for the arrest and insufficient evidence for a strip search. However, the court denied summary judgment on Ms. Valade’s excessive force claims (regarding tight handcuffs and shoving) and her sexual assault claim against Officer Seide, citing disputed facts and circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the claims against the City under Monell, the NYPD as a non-suable entity, and the unnamed Doe defendants were dismissed.

Civil RightsFalse ArrestExcessive ForceSexual AssaultMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentPolice MisconductProbable CauseFourth AmendmentDue Process
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 986 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