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
Sep 13, 1993

Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order that granted Creative Bakers, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. Concurrently, the court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery. The complaint against the employer, Creative Bakers, Inc., was properly dismissed as the plaintiff's exclusive remedy falls under the Workers' Compensation Law. Furthermore, the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery regarding the inter-relationship between defendants Patmast Acquiring Corp. and Creative Bakers, Inc. was denied. The court determined that the information sought had no bearing on whether the plaintiff could maintain a separate cause of action for personal injuries against the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryDiscovery MotionEmployer LiabilityDismissal of ComplaintAffirmed DecisionNew York LawCPLR 3212(f)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. CONWAY ORGANIZATION, INC.

Plaintiff Sharon Smith, a black woman, sued The Conway Organization, Inc. for racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging she was not hired due to her race. Conway moved for summary judgment, asserting an 'after-acquired evidence' defense, claiming Smith misrepresented her employment history on her application. The court examined the circuit split on whether after-acquired evidence bars liability or only affects remedies in discrimination cases. Following precedents that limit such evidence to the remedies stage, the court denied Conway's motion for summary judgment, concluding that after-acquired evidence is not admissible to determine liability.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964After-Acquired EvidenceSummary Judgment MotionResume FraudFailure to HireBurden of ProofPrima Facie Case
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

O'Reilly-Morshead v. O'Reilly-Morshead

This case addresses the equitable distribution of assets acquired during a civil union, entered into in Vermont, by a couple who later married in Canada and resided in New York. The plaintiff initiated a divorce action, and the defendant counterclaimed for the dissolution of the civil union and distribution of assets acquired during that period. The court determined it had jurisdiction to dissolve the civil union but, applying New York Domestic Relations Law, held that marital property is strictly defined from the date of marriage. Consequently, the court denied equitable distribution of any assets acquired during the civil union prior to the marriage, granting summary judgment for the defendant on the dissolution of the civil union but reserving the distribution of marital property and the right to divorce for trial.

Civil UnionEquitable DistributionDomestic Relations LawMarital PropertyNew York LawVermont LawConflict of LawsSame-Sex MarriageSummary JudgmentDivorce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. James Z.

In June 2010, the petitioner commenced a proceeding under the Mental Hygiene Law to civilly manage the respondent, alleging he was a sex offender requiring confinement due to a mental abnormality. After a jury trial, the respondent was found to be a detained sex offender with a mental abnormality, and subsequently committed to a secure treatment facility with his consent. The respondent appealed, contending that the jury's finding was against the weight of the evidence and that Supreme Court erred by allowing testimony about misconduct from his presentence report and using a confusing verdict sheet. The appellate court affirmed the order, determining that the jury's verdict was supported by expert testimony from multiple psychologists and that there were no errors in the court's evidentiary or procedural decisions. The court deferred to the jury's credibility determinations regarding the competing expert opinions on respondent's mental abnormality.

Sex OffenderCivil CommitmentMental AbnormalityAntisocial Personality DisorderParaphiliaExpert TestimonyWeight of EvidencePresentence ReportVerdict SheetAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubies v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Judge Read dissents from the majority's interpretation of 'permanent total disability' concerning acquired brain injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Read argues for a narrower definition, requiring the inability to perform usual daily living activities, aligning with legislative intent for the 1996 amendment to section 11. This amendment aimed to strictly curtail third-party actions against employers by narrowly defining 'grave injuries.' The dissent stresses that the list of grave injuries is exhaustive, not illustrative, and should not be broadly interpreted. Therefore, the definition of 'permanent total disability' for an acquired brain injury should essentially require a vegetative state to protect employers as intended by the Legislature.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjuryAcquired Brain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kanhoye v. Altana Inc.

Plaintiff Rohindranath Kanhoye sued Altana, Inc. and several individuals for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and New York State Human Rights Law. Kanhoye alleged retaliation after complaining about his pay and performance evaluations, leading to a "Final Warning" and eventual termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions and seeking to limit remedies based on after-acquired evidence of Kanhoye's alleged misconduct. The Court granted partial summary judgment to defendants, dismissing claims related to the 2004 performance evaluation, gender discrimination, and tortious interference with contractual relations. However, the Court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims concerning the final warning and termination, as well as on the after-acquired evidence defense, citing disputed material facts requiring a jury's resolution.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActNew York Human Rights LawTortious InterferenceAfter-Acquired EvidencePretextMcDonnell-Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
65
Case No. 06 Civ. 0266; 06 Civ. 3461; 07 Civ. 3258
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2007

Abbatiello v. Monsanto Co.

This case involves consolidated actions brought by two groups of current and former employees and a group of landowners against General Electric Company (GE) and Monsanto Company (including Solutia, Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation). The plaintiffs allege various tort claims including negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, fraud, emotional distress, abnormally dangerous activity, medical monitoring, fear of contracting illness, nuisance, and trespass, stemming from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from a GE manufacturing facility in Schenectady, New York, where Monsanto supplied PCBs. The defendants moved to dismiss certain claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, upholding claims such as abnormally dangerous activity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, medical monitoring, fear of contracting illness, and, for GE, negligence, strict liability, and trespass, while dismissing claims like breach of warranty, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress for various parties.

Toxic TortPCB ContaminationEnvironmental LitigationMotions to DismissStatute of LimitationsStrict LiabilityAbnormally Dangerous ActivityMedical MonitoringFear of IllnessNuisance
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1993

Archer v. IBM Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her claim for benefits, which alleged an acquired sensitivity to chemicals from exposure at IBM Corporation. The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of a causally related occupational disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing expert testimony from an IBM physician, Franklin Aldrich, who found no causal link between the claimant's dermatitis and workplace chemicals, despite conflicting testimony from other experts.

Occupational DiseaseChemical SensitivityWorkers' Compensation AppealCausationDermatitisExpert Medical TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dougherty v. State

Judge Harvey dissents, believing Labor Law § 240 (1) has a more limited application. The judge argues that liability under this section requires a fall from an elevated height, citing precedent from the Fourth and Second Departments. Judge Harvey concludes that the claimant in this case had not yet acquired the status of an employee working at an elevated height, and thus no liability exists under Labor Law § 240 (1) as the risk was not different from those at ground level. The opinion further states that defective or inadequate equipment was not the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevated HeightFall RiskConstruction LawLiabilityStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionProximate CauseEmployee Status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1987

Kornfeld v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission

The petitioner appealed a judgment dismissing a CPLR article 78 proceeding. This proceeding sought to review a June 3, 1987 determination which found the petitioner unqualified for employment as a Nassau County police officer. The determination was based on a medical officer's recommendation, citing abnormal electrocardiogram configurations indicating potential risks under stressful conditions. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, found the determination neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that the petitioner's physician's contrary opinion was not controlling. The judgment to dismiss the proceeding was subsequently affirmed.

CPLR article 78Police Officer EmploymentMedical DisqualificationElectrocardiogramStress TestAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentNassau CountyCivil Service LawJudicial Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 105 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