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

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. 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 Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn.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

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 1995

Pontos Renovation, Inc. v. Kitano Arms Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the dismissal of a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs Apostolides and Pontos had sued defendants Kitano and Misthopoulos, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and fraud. The court found that the alleged conduct, concerning the understatement of a contract's value, was not outrageous enough for emotional distress. Defamation claims against Misthopoulos were dismissed as his statements were deemed pure opinion. The tortious interference claim failed due to lack of pleading that defendants intentionally induced a breach. Finally, fraud allegations lacked the required specificity, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to replead was also denied.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPure Opinion DefenseTortious Interference with ContractFraudPleading RequirementsCPLR 3016(b)Motion to DismissLeave to Replead DeniedContract Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc. v. Town of Charlton

Plaintiff Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc., a general construction contractor, sued J. Paul Vosburgh Architect, EC. for tortious interference with contract after the Town of Charlton terminated plaintiff's contract. The architect was retained by the Town to provide design and contract administration services. The Town terminated plaintiff's contract based on a consultant's report detailing plaintiff's performance failures and delays. The Supreme Court denied the architect's motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff's tortious interference claim. On appeal, the order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiff's fifth cause of action was dismissed, as plaintiff failed to prove the architect's conduct was the 'but for' cause of the contract termination.

tortious interference with contractsummary judgmentconstruction contractcontractual disputearchitect liabilityagency relationshipcausationappellate reviewbreach of contractprofessional services
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marley v. Ibelli

J. Craig Marley, a former employee of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, sued his co-workers, Juliette Ibelli and Cordelia Rose, for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contract. The defendants, federal employees of the Smithsonian Institution, removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant and to dismiss the claims. The court granted the substitution, finding the co-workers acted within the scope of employment. It then dismissed the assault, battery, and tortious interference claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act's intentional torts exception, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the outrageous conduct standard. Marley's motions to remand and amend his complaint were denied.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCAWestfall ActSovereign ImmunityScope of EmploymentIntentional Torts ExceptionAssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious Interference with Contract
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic-Pacific Manufacturing Corp. v. Quinnonez

The employer sued two unions for damages and a permanent injunction, alleging a conspiracy to harm its business through unlawful picketing and other coercive acts. The unions engaged in continuous and often violent conduct, including physical altercations, obstruction of deliveries, and harassment, to pressure the employer despite one union lacking majority representation. The court found that the unions' actions, particularly the Seafarers', had an unlawful objective of coercing employees into joining the union, a violation of state labor law and the state constitution. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting all picketing and associated unlawful conduct by both defendant unions due to the pervasive violence. However, the claim for damages against the union officers was dismissed because the complaint failed to allege that individual union members authorized or ratified the tortious acts.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful CoercionUnion LiabilityDamages DismissedState ConstitutionLabor LawCivil Practice ActEmployer Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macy's, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Corp.

This consolidated action involves Macy's (and its subsidiary MMG) suing J.C. Penney (JCP) for tortious interference with an exclusive licensing agreement Macy's had with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO). Macy's held exclusive rights to Martha Stewart brands and designs in certain product categories. JCP intentionally induced MSLO to breach this contract by offering significant financial incentives and collaborating on designs for JCP-branded products to be sold in 'MSLO Stores' within JCP. The court found JCP liable for tortious interference, stating their conduct exceeded 'a minimum level of ethical behavior in the marketplace.' While initial injunctive reliefs were settled or withdrawn, the court referred the determination of damages and attorney's fees to a judicial hearing officer, but denied punitive damages.

Contract DisputeTortious InterferenceExclusivity ClauseLicensing AgreementRetail IndustryBrand ExclusivityBusiness EthicsCorporate MisconductNon-CompeteDamages
References
15
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04245
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Diluglio v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis A. Diluglio, Jr., an auto damage appraiser, brought an action against his employer, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., and manager, John Austin, alleging retaliation under New York State Human Rights Law and Labor Law § 215, assault by Austin, and vicarious liability against Liberty Mutual. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the retaliation claims against Liberty Mutual, finding that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity under the NYSHRL or identify a violated Labor Law provision. It also granted summary judgment on the vicarious liability claim, concluding that Austin's alleged tortious conduct was not within the scope of his employment. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the assault claim, as the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Austin's physical conduct did not place the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact.

RetaliationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Law § 215AssaultVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDiscriminatory PracticesProtected Activity
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAllister v. Renu Industrial Tire Corp.

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,419 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