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

People v. Marian

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's stalking statute. The defendant was charged with stalking her former girlfriend by sending numerous messages, including to a work email address, and appearing unannounced at various locations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), ruling that a person's work email address is not considered a "place of employment or business" as defined by the statute. Additionally, the court found other pleading defects for this specific count. However, the motion to dismiss the remaining charges, including falsely reporting an incident and stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (2), was denied as these counts were deemed facially sufficient.

StalkingEmail StalkingPenal LawFacial SufficiencyStatutory InterpretationPlace of EmploymentCriminal Procedure LawMisdemeanorFormer GirlfriendHarassment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Welte

The defendant was charged with criminal contempt in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree for allegedly violating a 'no contact' order of protection. The defendant reportedly accessed the complainant's Facebook 'Friend List' and contacted friends and family, accusing the complainant, Maureen Perry, of denying him access to their children. The court examined whether these communications constituted a violation of the order or stalking. Citing ambiguity in the order and the lack of specific allegations for elements of stalking, the court found the accusatory instruments facially insufficient. Consequently, the charges were dismissed.

Criminal ContemptStalkingOrder of ProtectionFacebookSocial MediaIndirect ContactFacial InsufficiencyPenal LawDue ProcessAmbiguity
References
7
Case No. 2015-1796 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

People v. Rivas (Mayra)

This case concerns an appeal by Mayra Rivas from her convictions for stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the first degree. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the facial sufficiency of the superseding accusatory instrument and the weight of the trial evidence. The court reversed and dismissed the conviction for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), finding the accusatory instrument facially insufficient as it lacked objective facts to establish a reasonable fear of employment loss. However, the convictions for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (1) and harassment in the first degree were affirmed, as the court determined that the extensive allegations supported a finding of a course of conduct intended to cause reasonable fear for personal safety, beyond mere protected speech.

StalkingHarassmentCriminal LawAppellate ReviewFacial InsufficiencySufficiency of EvidencePenal LawCriminal Procedure LawFirst AmendmentFree Speech
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marhone v. LaValley

An inmate, referred to as the petitioner, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility. The petitioner had filed a grievance and sent an inflammatory letter to a correction officer, leading to charges of stalking and harassment. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, the petitioner was found guilty. Upon judicial review, the court annulled the finding of guilt for stalking but upheld the harassment charge, citing the misbehavior report, the letter, and the petitioner's admission as substantial evidence. The court rejected the petitioner's defenses of retaliation and First Amendment protection.

Prison disciplinaryStalkingHarassmentCPLR Article 78 proceedingAdministrative appealFirst AmendmentInmate grievanceCorrectional facility rulesSubstantial evidenceCredibility issue
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bilus

The defendant, Mitchell J. Bilus, faced charges for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree following incidents at the Woodmere Post Office. He filed a motion to dismiss the informations due to facial insufficiency. The court granted the motion, dismissing both charges. It found that a federal postal worker does not qualify as a 'public servant' under the Penal Law for the obstruction charge, and the allegations failed to show an impairment of state governmental function. For the stalking charge, the court ruled that two incidents six months apart did not constitute a 'course of conduct' and the complainant's fear for employment was not reasonably established by the allegations.

Criminal LawObstructing Governmental AdministrationStalkingPenal LawFacial InsufficiencyMotion to DismissPublic Servant DefinitionCourse of ConductNew YorkDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. ADJ12441930
Regular
Dec 21, 2020

MARIA ESQUIVEL vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychiatric injury sustained by Maria Esquivel against The Permanente Medical Group. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Esquivel's injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, not merely a stage for personal issues. Evidence included coworker harassment, a restraining order against a coworker who stalked her daughter using company resources, and threats perceived as life-threatening. The Board distinguished this case from precedent where workplace gossip was deemed incidental, finding instead a direct causal link between Esquivel's employment and her injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationExecutive Order N-68-20Atascadero Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Geredes)causal connectionpsychiatric injuryneuropsychological panel qualified medical examinationDr. Kyle Van Gaasbeekco-employeesGlenda Carrera
References
5
Case No. 2015-877 N CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

People v. Todd (Norman)

Defendant Norman Todd was convicted of stalking in the fourth degree. The charges arose from three incidents in 2012 where he made inappropriate comments to a McDonald's employee and accosted her while she walked home. The District Court denied motions to suppress his statement and identification testimony. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was reversed and remitted for a new trial. The Appellate Term found the information and evidence sufficient. However, the court ruled that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling by permitting inquiry into a 27-year-old attempted rape conviction, deeming it unduly prejudicial. Additionally, the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated he could not promise to be impartial due to having a daughter.

Stalking in the Fourth DegreePenal Law § 120.45(1)Sufficiency of InformationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProbable Cause for ArrestPhoto Array SuggestivenessSandoval RulingJury SelectionChallenge for Cause
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1997

Scharf v. Levittown Public Schools

Dorothy Scharf, the plaintiff, an employee of Levittown Public Schools, settled an employment discrimination action in 1994, agreeing to cease maintaining a log concerning coworkers. However, she continued this activity, causing workplace dissension and making her coworker, Anna Schmitt, feel harassed and stalked. The defendant School District moved to reassign Scharf due to the deteriorated working relationship. After a hearing, the Court found that Scharf breached a material term of the settlement stipulation by continuing her logging activities. The Court found no evidence of harassment by the defendant's co-employees. Consequently, the Court granted the School District's request to reassign Scharf to a comparable secretarial position within the district with equivalent salary and benefits.

Employment DiscriminationSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractWorkplace ConductEmployee ReassignmentJudicial JurisdictionOpen Court StipulationLogging ActivitiesHarassment ClaimsSecretarial Duties
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vanhorne v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff Victorious Vanhorne, a former track employee, sued the New York City Transit Authority for race-based and retaliatory termination under Title VII, and unequal employment terms. Vanhorne's employment was terminated after he was found to have harassed, stalked, and threatened a supervisor, a decision upheld by a Tripartite Arbitration Board. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It found that Vanhorne failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge, lacking evidence of qualification for his position or circumstances inferring discrimination. His retaliation claim also failed because the adverse action predated his EEOC charge, negating a causal link. Furthermore, he presented no facts supporting his unequal employment terms claim. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseArbitration DecisionHarassmentInsubordinationRacial DiscriminationAdverse Employment Action
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 15 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