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 04, 2007

FCI Group, Inc. v. City of New York

This case involves an action brought by a contractor against the City of New York and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for the balance due on a construction contract. The defendants contended that the plaintiff forfeited its right to further payment due to the attempted bribery of two city employees by the plaintiff's president. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but this Court reversed that decision. It found that the contract's narrow alternative dispute resolution clause was inapplicable to the dispute. Crucially, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was bound by the contract’s forfeiture provision and that its enforcement did not offend public policy, as the unlawful conduct was central to the performance of the contract, thereby barring recovery.

Construction ContractContract ForfeitureBriberyPublic PolicyAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Summary JudgmentUnlawful GratuitiesEthical ConductContract InterpretationNew York City Charter
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. $293,316 in United States Currency

Claimants Ali Sher Khan, Akbar Ali Khan, and Fazal Subhan were convicted of currency smuggling offenses. The government initiated civil forfeiture proceedings in rem for the seized currency, seeking summary judgment for the entire amount. The court considered whether forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 5332(c) is subject to review under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause and 18 U.S.C. § 983(g). The court held that such forfeiture is subject to review and found that forfeiture of the entire amount would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the claimants' offenses. Ultimately, the court ordered the forfeiture of fifty percent of each claimant’s currency, specifically $33,500 for Ali Sher Khan, $9,650 for Akbar Ali Khan, and $5,000 for Fazal Subhan.

Civil ForfeitureCurrency SmugglingExcessive Fines ClauseEighth AmendmentProportionality ReviewBulk Cash Smuggling StatuteUSA Patriot ActAsset Forfeiture Reform ActCriminal PunishmentIn Rem Forfeiture
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Schlesinger

The government sought a preliminary order of forfeiture against Nat Sehlesinger and Goodmark Industries, Inc. for over $21 million, alleging assets were proceeds of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The defendants were convicted following a jury trial in May 2005, based on schemes involving fraudulent insurance claims for fires at their business property and defrauding creditors through shell corporations. The court determined that the Wallabout Street Property, which housed the business, facilitated the money laundering offense. It also ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture for mail and wire fraud even without 'special circumstances,' acting as a 'gap filler' where civil forfeiture is authorized. Consequently, the court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture for specific sums related to money laundering, insurance fraud proceeds, and creditor fraud proceeds.

Criminal ForfeitureMail FraudWire FraudMoney LaunderingInsurance FraudCreditor FraudAsset ForfeitureWallabout Street PropertyFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)18 U.S.C. § 982
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2014

People v. Hares

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Cayuga County Court, rendered on June 12, 2014, convicting her of fraudulent practices, welfare fraud, and misuse of food stamps following a guilty plea. The judgment included an order of forfeiture of her right to future workers' compensation benefits due to an existing back injury. The defendant sought to vacate this forfeiture as a matter of discretion. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, noting that the forfeiture was a voluntary part of the plea agreement, the defendant had a prior conviction for welfare fraud, and she had earned unreported income as a cage dancer despite her alleged disability.

Welfare FraudFraudulent PracticesMisuse of Food StampsGuilty PleaRestitutionForfeiture OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewPlea AgreementCriminal Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Property Clerk v. Aponte

This special proceeding addresses the forfeiture of a 1987 Volkswagen seized during the respondent's arrest for drug possession. The respondent drove his vehicle to a known drug location, purchased heroin, and was apprehended upon driving away. Although initially charged with criminal possession, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The core legal question revolves around the required nexus between the vehicle and the alleged crime for forfeiture under section 14-140 (b) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The court, drawing on interpretations from similar statutes, concluded that the vehicle’s use was merely for locomotion and did not substantially aid or further the commission of the drug purchase. Consequently, the court denied the forfeiture, ruling that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient connection, and ordered the return of the automobile to the respondent.

ForfeitureVehicle SeizureDrug PossessionAdministrative CodeNexus RequirementDisorderly ConductPenal LawPublic Health LawInstrumentality of CrimeAttenuated Connection
References
13
Case No. KA 14-01516
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

HARES, TERRY L., PEOPLE v

Defendant Terry L. Hares appealed from a judgment convicting her, upon her guilty plea, of fraudulent practices (Workers’ Compensation Law § 114 [1]), welfare fraud in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 158.05), and misuse of food stamps (Social Services Law § 147 [1] [a] [i]). Pursuant to a plea agreement, she was sentenced to concurrent terms of probation, ordered to pay restitution, and an order of forfeiture was issued regarding her right to receive workers’ compensation benefits. Defendant sought to vacate the forfeiture order, arguing it was unfair given her existing back injury. The Appellate Division declined to vacate the agreed-upon order of forfeiture, noting it was part of a voluntary plea, her prior welfare fraud conviction, and her ability to earn unreported income as a cage dancer despite her alleged disability. The judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Fraudulent practicesWelfare fraudMisuse of food stampsPlea agreementRestitutionForfeiture orderWorkers' compensation benefitsAppellate reviewGuilty pleaCriminal procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marsh v. Prudential Securities Inc.

This case addresses whether Prudential Securities Incorporated's MasterShare Plan, an optional investment benefit for its financial advisors, violates New York Labor Law § 193. The plan involves voluntary wage deductions for investment in a public stock index fund, offering tax deferral and discounted share purchases, but includes provisions for temporary non-transferability and forfeiture upon termination for cause or resignation within three years. A former employee, whose MasterShare account was forfeited after his termination, initiated a class action, arguing the plan's deductions and forfeiture terms violate the 'benefit of the employee' requirement of Labor Law § 193. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals determined that the plan does not violate Labor Law § 193, concluding that such investment deductions are 'similar payments for the benefit of the employee' and that, given full disclosure and the sophisticated nature of the participating employees, the forfeiture provision does not negate the overall benefits of the plan when assessed in its entirety.

Wage deductionsInvestment planMasterShare PlanLabor Law § 193Forfeiture provisionStock index fundTax deferralEmployee benefitsCertified questionPrudential Securities
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1983

In re the Claim of Bruggeman

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant, suspended for criminal misconduct involving the sale of a controlled substance during non-working hours, was ineligible for benefits, charged with a recoverable overpayment due to willful misrepresentation, and penalized for future benefits. The claimant appealed, contending that the misconduct was unrelated to employment and that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities should prevent forfeiture of benefits. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's decision. It held that misconduct raising questions about a worker's integrity, even if during non-working hours, relates to work, and that the certificate of relief does not prevent the forfeiture of unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsCriminal MisconductMoral TurpitudeForfeiture of BenefitsWillful MisrepresentationCivil DisabilitiesCorrection LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

MTA Bus Co. v. Transport Workers Union of America

This case concerns an appeal by Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 12, 2006. The underlying action involved an injunction against a prospective violation of the Taylor Law, leading to a finding of contempt against the union. Consequently, the union's right to deduct dues from its members' paychecks was suspended indefinitely. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no impropriety in the plaintiff's motion for forfeiture of dues collection. Furthermore, the court determined that the ordered forfeiture did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses of either the United States or New York State Constitutions.

Taylor LawUnion Dues ForfeiturePublic Employee UnionsContempt ProceedingsDouble Jeopardy ClauseAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsPayroll DeductionsCivil Service ViolationsInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manowitz v. Senter

The plaintiff appealed an order denying partial summary judgment regarding his pension rights from defendant CITC Industries, Inc. The plaintiff voluntarily terminated employment and was later notified that his pension account was closed due to alleged willful misconduct, more than three years post-termination. The court, citing Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., ruled that the pension plan lacked provisions for retroactive forfeiture of vested benefits for misconduct discovered after an employee's voluntary termination. The court also noted the defendant's failure to provide timely notice of forfeiture and present sufficient evidentiary proof of misconduct. Consequently, the lower court's order was reversed, and the plaintiff was declared entitled to the reinstatement of his pension benefits.

Pension BenefitsVested RightsVoluntary TerminationForfeiture of BenefitsEmployee MisconductRetroactive ForfeitureContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePension Plan Agreement
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 62 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