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

D'ANDREA v. Rafla-Demetrious

Mark A. D’Andrea sued Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn, alleging multiple claims including invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The court had previously granted summary judgment on all claims except the invasion of privacy claim, which proceeded to trial. After D’Andrea presented his case, Methodist Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted this motion, ruling that the use of D’Andrea’s photograph in the hospital’s brochures was merely incidental to the document's main purpose and thus did not violate New York’s invasion of privacy statute. The court emphasized that the statute narrowly applies only to commercial use, and incidental uses are not actionable.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawCommercial Use of LikenessIncidental Use DoctrineFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)Summary JudgmentPromotional BrochureMedical Residency ProgramRight of PublicityTort Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc.

Plaintiff Anna Pearce initiated an action against Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc. and several other defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law Section 51, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination under New York City and State Human Rights Laws. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled on the motion, granting it partially and denying it in part. The court sustained the claims related to breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and invasion of privacy, allowing them to proceed. Conversely, the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination were dismissed.

Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelInvasion of PrivacyMotion to DismissNew York Civil Rights LawOral AgreementsStatute of FraudsImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Heyman

Plaintiff Amador Rivera, a security officer for the Smithsonian Institution, sued his employer and supervisors, Luis Palau and Edward Dolan, alleging discrimination based on his HIV status and subsequent retaliation. Rivera claimed violations under the Federal Rehabilitation Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the Federal Tort Claims Act for invasion of privacy. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the Rehabilitation Act claims because the Smithsonian is not an executive branch entity covered by the Act. Title VII claims failed as disability discrimination is outside its scope, and state/local human rights claims were precluded by exclusive federal remedies. Finally, the court dismissed the invasion of privacy claim, declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims were resolved.

Rehabilitation ActTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHIV StatusFederal EmployeesRetaliation ClaimJudgment on PleadingsJurisdictionSupplemental Jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Harley v. Druzba

This action involves Amanda Harley, daughter of Gerald and Jacqueline Harley, suing social worker Joseph V. Druzba, her mother, and maternal grandmother. The dispute arises from events stemming from her parents' contentious divorce, where Druzba was retained for family counseling regarding visitation issues that subsequently deteriorated. Amanda alleged Druzba's negligence resulted in loss of sibling visitation, and claimed torts of custodial interference, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The court addressed Druzba's motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. The first cause of action, concerning loss of sibling visitation, was not dismissed, acknowledging legislative recognition of such rights, while the remaining four causes of action were dismissed for various legal deficiencies, including lack of standing, no contractual relationship, and New York's stance on common-law invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in matrimonial contexts.

Sibling Visitation RightsCustodial InterferenceBreach of ContractInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmMotion to DismissSocial Worker NegligenceFamily CounselingDivorce LitigationCPLR 3211(a)(7)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills

The case concerns a dissenting opinion regarding a request by petitioners to the Department of Education for the business addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in Schenectady County. The Department maintains a database of nearly 800,000 licensed professionals but does not differentiate between residential and business addresses. While the majority concluded that disclosing business addresses would not violate personal privacy, the dissenting judge, Malone Jr., argues that disclosing residential addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, emphasizing a heightened privacy concern for home addresses. The dissent criticizes the majority's reliance on an advisory opinion and proposes that affected licensees should be given notice and an opportunity to intervene to protect their privacy rights. The final order reversed the prior judgment and granted the petition, allowing the disclosure of addresses.

Licensing InformationProfessional ConductPrivacy RightsPublic RecordsFreedom of Information LawResidential AddressesBusiness AddressesVeterinariansVeterinary TechniciansSchenectady County

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 18, 2021

Matter of Suhr v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv.

Petitioner Daniel R. Suhr requested records from the New York State Department of Civil Service under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), specifically seeking employee names and home zip codes. Respondent partially denied the request, withholding home zip codes citing privacy exemptions. Suhr then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the Supreme Court partially granted his application, ordering the disclosure of the zip codes. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that home zip codes are functionally equivalent to an address for FOIL purposes. The court concluded that disclosing home zip codes, when paired with employee names, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(a) and 87(2)(b), outweighing the minimal public interest in such information.

FOILPublic Officers LawPrivacy ExemptionHome Zip CodesState EmployeesCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyData DisclosurePersonal Privacy

References

Case No. ADJ119309 (OAK 0332713) ADJ1352097 (OAK 332714)

Regular

Aug 09, 2011

KEN LAWHN vs. FARMERS INSURANCE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's order compelling a neuropsychological evaluation. The Board determined the WCJ's order was an interim discovery ruling, not a final decision on substantive rights, making it ineligible for reconsideration. The applicant's petition for removal was also denied, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for the original order. The applicant had argued the evaluation was an invasion of privacy and unnecessary as neuropsychological health was not at issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeuropsychological QME evaluationNon-industrial closed head injuryOpen labor marketPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderDiscovery orderInterim orderSubstantive rights

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Bloom v. Fox News of Los Angeles

Plaintiff William Bloom sued Fox Television Stations, Inc. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, alleging a news broadcast falsely portrayed him as a morally corrupt and incompetent physician. The broadcast detailed charges from the New York State Department of Health's Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which led to limitations on Bloom's medical license. Fox moved for summary judgment, arguing the statements were substantially true, privileged, or pure opinion. The Court granted summary judgment to Fox, concluding the broadcast was a fair and true report of official proceedings and that statements made were either substantially true or unactionable opinion.

DefamationFalse LightSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentNew York LawMedical MisconductOfficial ProceedingsSubstantial TruthFreedom of SpeechMedia Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 129 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

D'ANDREA v. Rafla-Demetrious

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Heyman

Rehabilitation ActTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHIV StatusFederal EmployeesRetaliation ClaimJudgment on PleadingsJurisdictionSupplemental Jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Harley v. Druzba

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills

Licensing InformationProfessional ConductPrivacy RightsPublic RecordsFreedom of Information LawResidential AddressesBusiness AddressesVeterinariansVeterinary TechniciansSchenectady County

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 18, 2021

Matter of Suhr v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv.

FOILPublic Officers LawPrivacy ExemptionHome Zip CodesState EmployeesCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyData DisclosurePersonal Privacy

References

Case No. ADJ119309 (OAK 0332713) ADJ1352097 (OAK 332714)

Regular

Aug 09, 2011

KEN LAWHN vs. FARMERS INSURANCE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Bloom v. Fox News of Los Angeles

DefamationFalse LightSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentNew York LawMedical MisconductOfficial ProceedingsSubstantial TruthFreedom of SpeechMedia Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 129 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.