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
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

Ralph v. Oliver

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming in part and reinstating a cause of action. It was deemed proper to defer the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a coemployee defendant, pending a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the course of employment. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue an intentional tort of assault claim independently, as it falls outside the Workers’ Compensation Law if the assault was committed with deliberate intent and outside the scope of employment. Consequently, the plaintiff's assault cause of action was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultCoemployee LiabilityScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Board Deferral
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prave v. State

The State of New York appealed 17 separate orders from the Court of Claims that denied its motion for summary judgment in actions alleging intentional assault stemming from the Attica uprising. The State contended that the claimants' acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred their intentional tort claims, constituting an election of remedies. Claimants argued they never applied for benefits and should not be bound by such an election. The Appellate Division held that accepting benefits, even if initiated by the employer, generally precludes a subsequent tort action if the Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable. To pursue their tort claims, claimants must first seek to rescind the Board's prior determination that their injuries were accidental. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court's orders, granted summary judgment to the State, and dismissed the claims without prejudice for claimants to seek a redetermination from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Attica UprisingWorkers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral AttackWorkers' Compensation BoardRescission of AwardElection of RemediesCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2007

Botway v. National Response Corp.

The defendant, Deborah L. Wick, appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff alleged Wick, her supervisor at National Response Corporation (NRC), caused injuries through an intentional tort, despite receiving worker's compensation benefits. Wick argued the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, and the intentional tort exception did not apply as she lacked intent to injure. The Supreme Court denied Wick's motion, finding a factual dispute regarding the intentional tort. The appellate court affirmed this denial, concluding that Wick failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment by not eliminating the existence of a factual issue concerning whether an intentional tort was committed.

Personal InjuryIntentional TortSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySupervisor LiabilityAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactPrima Facie EntitlementEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1987

Bulis v. Di Lorenzo

This case involves an appeal from an order denying a defendant's motion for renewal of summary judgment. The plaintiff, a coemployee at Chemical Bank, sued the defendant for personal injuries after the defendant allegedly slammed a conference table onto her foot, claiming negligence and intentional tort. While the negligence claim was previously dismissed under Workers' Compensation Law, the intentional tort claim remained. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial, finding that new deposition testimony constituted new facts justifying renewal. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the defendant's intent to cause harm, a necessary element for an intentional tort claim outside workers' compensation.

Intentional TortWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentCoemployee LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesMotion for RenewalAppellate ReversalProof of IntentFrustrationDeposition Testimony
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp.

The plaintiffs, former employees of Pymm Thermometer Corporation, initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries stemming from mercury and solvent exposure. They appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which dismissed their complaint against Pymm. The plaintiffs argued that Pymm's actions constituted an intentional tort and fraudulent concealment, thus bypassing the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law generally bars common-law tort actions against employers for work-related injuries, with an exception only for intentional torts directed at specific employees, which was not adequately pleaded. Furthermore, the court clarified that Labor Law violations do not override Workers' Compensation exclusivity and that acceptance of workers' compensation benefits precludes intentional tort claims.

Personal Injury DamagesEmployer NegligenceIntentional MisrepresentationFraudulent InducementExclusive Remedy DoctrineStatutory ViolationsToxic Substance ExposureAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissAffirmation of Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. State

This case consolidates 20 appeals addressing whether claimants are precluded by Workers' Compensation Law from suing their employer, the State of New York, for intentional assault. The claims arose from the 1971 Attica Correctional Facility uprising. The court held that claimants who applied for and received workers' compensation benefits, or for whom the Workers' Compensation Board determined injuries were accidental and compensable, are barred from maintaining intentional tort actions against their employer. The decision emphasizes the finality and exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, asserting that such matters fall under the Board's jurisdiction. The Appellate Division's dismissal of these actions was affirmed, with the court noting that claimants' only recourse is to petition the Workers' Compensation Board for reconsideration of its determinations.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyIntentional AssaultAttica UprisingSummary JudgmentFinality of Board DecisionsCollateral AttackEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewTort Claims
References
10
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nash v. Oberman

In this appeal, the defendants, Dr. Oberman and the New York City Transit Authority, challenged a resettled order that, despite granting them summary judgment, allowed the plaintiffs leave to replead an intentional tort claim. The plaintiff, Adrienne Nash, had alleged personal injuries including a miscarriage due to medical malpractice and negligence by Dr. Oberman, a coemployee, for whom the Transit Authority was vicariously liable. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, affirming that Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) is the exclusive remedy for such claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations amounted to, at most, gross negligence or reckless conduct, which is insufficient to circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity for intentional torts. Consequently, the plaintiffs were denied leave to replead an intentional tort cause of action.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyIntentional TortMedical MalpracticeNegligenceSummary JudgmentLeave to RepleadAppellate ReviewMiscarriage ClaimCoemployee Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.

Plaintiff Debrah Sowemimo sued D.A.O.R. Security, Inc., her supervisor Mohammed Islam, the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and Deputy Director Leandra Barbieri, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, racial discrimination, negligence, and intentional torts. Sowemimo claimed Islam sexually harassed and assaulted her, and Barbieri made racial slurs. The court denied summary judgment for D.A.O.R. on sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge claims, and for Islam on sexual harassment and intentional torts. However, summary judgment was granted for DHS and Barbieri on all claims, and for D.A.O.R. on negligence and intentional torts, finding DHS was not Sowemimo's employer and D.A.O.R.'s conduct didn't meet the threshold for emotional distress.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,872 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