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

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper Square Hotel, LLC v. Assured Source National, LLC

Petitioner Cooper Square Hotel, LLC sought to discharge a mechanic's lien filed by respondent Assured Source National, LLC against its property. The petitioner argued that the lien should be discharged due to waivers of mechanic's liens executed by the respondent and Angel Construction Group, LLC, and because the respondent, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), is not entitled to assert a mechanic's lien under Lien Law § 3. The court acknowledged that factual issues regarding the waivers and payments would warrant discovery. However, the court ultimately determined that the respondent, as a PEO, failed to overcome the presumption that it did not provide labor, citing *Tri-State Empl. Servs. v Mountbatten Sur. Co.* as precedent. Consequently, the court granted the petition and ordered the discharge of the mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOLabor LawLien LawWaiver of LienConstruction ManagementPayroll FinancingCo-employerNew York State Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carey & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves cross-appeals from an order of Special Term concerning the arbitration of discharge grievances in Buffalo and furlough grievances in Sharon under a collective bargaining agreement. The Special Term had denied arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances, which the appellate court found to be a misconception of the court's role in arbitration. The appellate court emphasized that only the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute thereunder should be considered, leaving matters of law and fact to the arbitrators. The court also deemed the question of public policy overriding arbitration rules premature. Regarding the Sharon furlough claims, the Special Term's decision to compel arbitration was affirmed, with the appellate court rejecting claims of Federal preemption. The final order was modified to grant the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances and affirmed in all other respects.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeDischarge GrievancesFurlough GrievancesCross-AppealSpecial Term OrderPublic PolicyFederal PreemptionAppellate Review
References
4
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
Jan 31, 1990

Claim of Campbell v. McMillan Book Co.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had previously ruled that the discharge of the claimant’s decedent was not in retaliation for filing a compensation claim. The appellate court found that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving that the decedent’s discharge was retaliatory. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s conclusion that the decedent was discharged for a valid business purpose, specifically for failing to timely file a required form despite warnings and extensions, was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the determination that the employment termination was not retaliatory for filing disability benefits was upheld.

Retaliatory DischargeDisability ClaimEmployment TerminationTimely Filing RequirementBusiness JustificationEvidentiary SupportAppellate ReviewClaim DenialWorkplace Policies
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

Loos v. New York Telephone Co.

The plaintiff, a 25-year repairman for New York Telephone Company and a union member, was discharged after a 10-day suspension due to alleged misconduct. Following a three-step grievance procedure, the union declined to pursue arbitration on his behalf. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant for wrongful discharge. At the trial stage, the complaint was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case regarding the union's alleged wrongful refusal to arbitrate. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted, with the appellate court referencing *Vaca v Sipes*. The court determined that sufficient evidence existed to make out a prima facie case, asserting that the factual question of the union's conduct should have been presented to a jury.

Wrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureArbitrationFair Representation DutyPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewNew TrialSuffolk County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1977

Wilborn v. Starr

This Supreme Court, New York County, judgment reviews the dismissal of 12 probationary repair crew workers by the City for 'unsatisfactory service'. The initial trial found that the City's evaluations were conducted in bad faith due to evaluators lacking sufficient knowledge of the petitioners' work, rendering the discharges arbitrary. On appeal, the judgment was modified, ordering the reinstatement of most petitioners as repair crew workers and overturning an imposed additional three-month probationary period. However, the discharge of petitioner Lyles was affirmed based on a proper evaluation of his tardiness and absenteeism, while petitioner Diaz did not appeal his dismissal.

Probationary PeriodUnsatisfactory ServiceArbitrary and Capricious DismissalGood Faith EvaluationReinstatementRepair Crew WorkersJudicial ReviewTardinessAbsenteeismGovernment Employment
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 800 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