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

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ennis

Sheldon Ennis was convicted of drug conspiracy, assault, and weapon possession. He appealed, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer's failure to utilize exculpatory information: his brother Aaron's statement claiming he, not Sheldon, committed a shooting. Both the trial and appellate courts denied relief, reasoning that Aaron's statement was inadmissible due to Fifth Amendment privilege and hearsay rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient because the exculpatory evidence lacked an admissible avenue to the jury, thus rendering its non-disclosure non-material under Brady.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselBrady ViolationHearsay ExceptionFifth Amendment PrivilegeDeclarations Against Penal InterestCriminal ConspiracyAssaultWeapon PossessionAppellate ReviewEvidence Admissibility
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00923 [180 AD3d 446]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Jessica Denson, a former employee of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment, which led to the campaign initiating arbitration for alleged breaches of her non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement (NDA). The arbitrator issued awards against Denson for disclosing confidential information in a federal action challenging the NDA and for statements on social media. The Supreme Court affirmed these awards, but the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the judgment and vacated the arbitration awards. The appellate court ruled that penalizing Denson for statements made in a judicial proceeding violated strong public policy protecting freedom of expression in court. Furthermore, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by considering events that occurred after the initial demand for arbitration, making the entire award invalid.

Arbitration award vacaturNon-disclosure agreement (NDA)Non-disparagement agreementPublic policyArbitrator authorityJudicial privilegeAppellate reviewEmployment disputeSex discriminationHostile work environment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hospital Center

Ansa Qureshi, a former pediatrics resident, sued St. Barnabas Hospital Center and Dr. David Rubin for defamation following her resignation. She alleged four instances of defamation regarding statements made after her departure, including "personal reasons" for leaving, requiring therapy, and unsatisfactory professionalism ratings submitted to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) and other residency programs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the statements were not defamatory, were non-actionable opinions, or were protected by qualified privilege. The court found that Rubin's statement about "personal reasons" was not defamatory, and his statement to Qureshi's co-workers was an un-actionable opinion. While statements to Qureshi's father, the ABP, and other programs could be actionable mixed opinions, they were shielded by a qualified privilege due to shared interests. Qureshi failed to provide sufficient evidence of malice to overcome this privilege. Consequently, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the defamation claim.

DefamationSummary JudgmentQualified PrivilegeOpinion vs. FactResidency ProgramProfessionalismMedical EducationEmployment LawNew York LawConflict of Laws
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Mason

Defendant Donald Mason was indicted on federal charges including firearm and drug possession. He filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, arguing violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The court determined that the initial encounter with NYPD officers in a public housing building, where Mason was a non-resident, was consensual. His subsequent attempt to flee, coupled with evidence of trespassing, provided officers with probable cause for arrest. The court denied the motion to suppress physical evidence and statements on Fourth Amendment grounds, finding the arrest and search lawful. Additionally, Mason's post-arrest statements were admissible as spontaneous utterances, not resulting from custodial interrogation prior to Miranda warnings.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentMotion to SuppressProbable CauseReasonable SuspicionConsensual EncountersInvestigative DetentionsArrestTrespassingCriminal Procedure
References
35
Case No. 05-CV-3580
Regular Panel Decision

Cantu v. Flanigan

Plaintiff Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu sued defendant Billy R. Flanigan for defamation, leading to a jury award of $38,000,000 in economic damages and $150,000,000 in non-economic damages. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the economic damages but remanded for an explanation regarding the non-economic damages' excessiveness. This court, applying New York law (N.Y. CPLR § 5501(c)), reviewed factors like Cantu's standing, the nature and circulation of the defamatory statements, and their injurious tendency. Despite the award being higher than precedents, the court affirmed the $150,000,000 non-economic damages, noting the severe economic losses, the egregious nature of Flanigan's attempted criminal extortion, and the proportionality to economic damages in similar cases.

DefamationEconomic DamagesNon-Economic DamagesJury AwardExcessiveness of DamagesNew York LawCPLR 5501(c)Second Circuit RemandReputation DamageMental Anguish
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 3,461 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