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

Sanderson v. Bellevue Maternity Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was removed from her position at Bellevue Maternity Hospital by her supervisor, Susan Fraley, following a co-worker's allegation of harassment. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the co-worker for defamation and tortious interference, and against Bellevue and Fraley for defamation and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, citing qualified privilege, and the wrongful discharge claim against Bellevue, upholding the principle of at-will employment. This appeal affirms the dismissal of the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, concluding that Fraley's statements were protected by qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice. The court also noted the abandonment of the wrongful discharge claim on appeal.

DefamationAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceRespondeat SuperiorWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHarassment AllegationEmployee Relations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheridan v. Carter

The plaintiffs, Fontaine Sheridan and Donald Sheridan, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The original order had granted the defendant Domestic Workers United's (DWU) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action in a defamation case, and also granted defendant Cindy Carter's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her. The appellate court reversed this order, denying both DWU's motion to dismiss and Carter's motion for summary judgment. The case stemmed from Carter's allegations of abuse and exploitation by the Sheridans, which were published in newspapers and circulated by DWU in flyers, leading the Sheridans to sue for defamation. The appellate court found sufficient allegations for a libel claim against DWU and that Carter failed to prove the truth of her defamatory statements.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewPublic ConcernDomestic WorkersAbuse AllegationsImmigration Status
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desalvatore v. Washburn

This case concerns a plaintiff attorney's defamation lawsuit against Frederick C. and Joanna L. Washburn, stemming from a letter they sent to the Social Security Administration (SSA) disputing the attorney's fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service and absolute privilege for the allegedly defamatory statements made during an administrative fee review. The plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the defendants' counsel. The court, presided over by Justice Robert F. Julian, determined that the statements made to the SSA were part of a quasi-judicial proceeding and thus absolutely privileged, leading to the dismissal of the defamation complaint. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for counsel disqualification and the defendants' request for sanctions, noting the novelty of the privilege issue concerning SSA complaints.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsQuasi-Judicial BodySocial Security AdministrationFee DisputeService of ProcessAttorney FeesFrivolous LitigationDisqualification of Counsel
References
15
Case No. 1999-05407
Regular Panel Decision

Red Cap Valet, Ltd. v. Hotel Nikko (USA), Inc.

This case involves appeals by defendants Ramon Rosa and Leigh Russo from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning defamation and tortious interference with a contract. Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn. The Appellate Division modified another order, granting Leigh Russo's motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action (defamation) against her, finding the statement subject to qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to allege malice. Additionally, the plaintiff was denied leave to replead the sixth cause of action (conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contractual relations) against both defendants, as New York does not recognize an independent tort for conspiracy. The Supreme Court's decision to not dismiss the second cause of action against Ramon Rosa for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations was upheld.

DefamationTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionLeave to RepleadQualified PrivilegeAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureConspiracy
References
8
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

BCRE 230 Riverside v. Fuchs

This case concerns an appeal of two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order that allowed the defendant to amend counterclaims and subsequently dismissed those counterclaims. The second order denied the defendant's motion to renew the first order concerning a defamation counterclaim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both lower court orders, finding the defendant's proposed counterclaims for defamation, injurious falsehood, and malicious prosecution to be palpably insufficient as a matter of law due to failures in meeting pleading requirements for particularity, malice, and special damages. The court also rejected the defendant's argument for discovery and found the facts presented for renewal were not new or would not alter the prior determination.

DefamationInjurious FalsehoodMalicious ProsecutionCounterclaimsMotion to VacateMotion to RenewPleading RequirementsCPLR 3016(a)ParticularitySpecial Damages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 1998

Conciatori v. Longworth

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The first order, entered December 19, 1997, granted summary judgment to defendants Peter Longworth, Foley, Smit, O’Boyle and Weisman, CIGNA Companies Insurance Company of North America, and Janice Bogner, dismissing the defamation complaint against them, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend. The second, a judgment entered March 19, 1998, dismissed the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as the right of direct appeal ended with the judgment entry. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that statements made by attorney Peter Longworth at a Workers' Compensation Board hearing were absolutely privileged as they related to the hearing's subject. Furthermore, statements by Janice Bogner, acting within Cigna's employment and related to the Workers' Compensation Board matter, were qualifiedly privileged; the plaintiff failed to show malice. Claims for prima facie tort and tortious interference with contractual relations were also properly dismissed due to lack of specificity regarding special damages and failure to prove intentional procurement of contract breach, respectively.

Summary JudgmentDefamationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeWorkers' Compensation BoardPrima Facie TortTortious InterferenceAppellate ProcedureNew York LawAttorneys
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rine v. Chase

The plaintiff appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed claims of defamation and malicious prosecution against a certified social worker. The social worker had reported suspected child abuse based on therapy sessions, which was later deemed unfounded. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under Social Services Law § 419 for good faith reporting. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the defendant demonstrated reasonable cause and good faith, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of misconduct, gross negligence, or actual malice to overcome the statutory immunity. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed as it merged with the final judgment.

DefamationMalicious ProsecutionChild Abuse ReportingSocial Services Law § 419Qualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureGood FaithGross NegligenceActual Malice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1981

Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against his supervisor, Manobianco, and employer, Maimonides Medical Center, following an alleged defamatory statement. Defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed several affirmative defenses, including Workers' Compensation and absolute privilege. The appellate court reversed the order in part, striking the defense of qualified privilege for specific causes of action and the Workers' Compensation defense where employer participation in intentional torts was alleged. However, the Workers' Compensation defense was upheld for claims based on respondeat superior and those where the injury was deemed compensable, even partially. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law abrogates common-law remedies for such injuries, leaving recourse to the Legislature for perceived harsh outcomes.

DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeRespondeat SuperiorCoemployee ImmunityEmployer LiabilityCommon Law Remedies
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 172 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