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 19, 1984

Goldstein v. Barco of California, Inc.

The fourth-party defendant, Nathan’s Famous of Massapequa, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to amend its fourth-party answer. The proposed amendment aimed to plead the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the order, holding that an employer may be liable in a third-party or fourth-party action for an employee's injury, even if a direct action by the employee against the employer would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court cited precedent, including Dole v Dow Chem. Co., affirming that workers' compensation provisions do not bar such actions for indemnification or contribution. Consequently, the motion to amend the answer was deemed to be devoid of merit and was properly denied.

Workers' CompensationFourth-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendIndemnificationContributionExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPleading Amendment
References
7
Case No. 2018-11587 (Index No. 20807/15)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Broecker v. Conklin Prop., LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order in a fourth-party action concerning negligence and breach of contract. Conklin Property, LLC, a fourth-party plaintiff, sued Total Management Corp. and David Lande (appellants), alleging they failed to procure adequate insurance for a construction project after a worker was injured and died, leading to a disclaimer of coverage by the insurer. The Supreme Court denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint and granted Conklin's cross-motion to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Conklin sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The court also determined that a special relationship existed between Conklin and the appellants, justifying the addition of a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Furthermore, the court found the actions to be within the statute of limitations, accruing on the date of the worker's injury.

NegligenceBreach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityNegligent MisrepresentationFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsFourth-Party ActionInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southerland v. Woo

This case involves a father and his now-grown children suing Timothy Woo, a former caseworker for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs alleged Woo made false statements or omitted information to obtain a Family Court order for entry into their home (Fourth Amendment), and then improperly removed the children without court approval (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments). After multiple appeals and a mistrial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on both claims. The court granted Woo qualified immunity for the Entry Order claim, finding his misstatements immaterial to probable cause. However, the court denied qualified immunity for the children's removal, concluding that no reasonable caseworker would have believed emergency circumstances warranted immediate seizure without a court order, especially given ACS policies and available alternatives. The court also rejected Woo's arguments for judicial estoppel and the application of *Cameron v. Fogarty*.

Civil RightsFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentQualified ImmunityChild RemovalDue ProcessFamily Court ActJudicial EstoppelExigent CircumstancesChild Neglect
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2013

Amato v. Hartnett

Plaintiff Carl Amato, a former Detention Officer for the City of Yonkers, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and various employees, alleging violations of his First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, conspiracy, and a state law conversion claim for his firearms. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on several claims, including the First Amendment, due process (commitment and termination), Fourth Amendment (search, seizure, and arrest), and conspiracy claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on Amato's Fourth Amendment claim regarding involuntary commitment against defendants Bennett and Fara, his Second Amendment claim, and his state law conversion claim, allowing these claims to proceed.

Civil RightsSection 1983First AmendmentFourth AmendmentDue ProcessSummary JudgmentPublic EmployeeRetaliationInvoluntary CommitmentFirearms Seizure
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hearn v. Internal Revenue Agents

This case involves a Texas corporation (Worldwide Capital Management, Inc. - WCM) and two Texas residents (Hearn and Williams) suing agents and employees of the IRS for alleged constitutional violations stemming from a search and seizure of WCM's offices in May 1984. Plaintiffs initially sought injunctive relief and later amended their complaint to seek damages under various constitutional tort theories, including claims under the Fourth, First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. The court had previously ruled that the search itself was conducted in a reasonable and lawful manner. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the agents and lack of standing for the individual plaintiffs. The court dismissed claims against specific named defendants (Kurtz, Cagle, Lawrence, Hernandez) and WCM's Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient allegations to overcome the assertion of qualified immunity. Furthermore, the court found that Hearn and Williams, as independent contractors, lacked standing to assert Fourth Amendment claims because they did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in WCM's business premises. Finally, all three plaintiffs' claims under the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments were dismissed for lacking either a factual or legal basis. Consequently, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Fourth AmendmentQualified ImmunityStanding DoctrineIndependent Contractor StatusIRS AgentsSearch and SeizureBivens ActionFirst Amendment RightsFifth Amendment Due ProcessNinth Amendment Claims
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Toms v. Pizzo

Jerry Toms, acting pro se, sued Kodak and several employees (Pizzo, Torrey, Gates, Bradley) alleging various claims. Toms, an independent contractor, claimed breach of contract, RICO violations, Fourth Amendment violations (search and seizure, invasion of privacy), and federal copyright infringement related to his work and subsequent employment with Kodak. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all federal claims (RICO, copyright, Fourth Amendment) due to insufficient pleading or jurisdictional prerequisites (e.g., no copyright registration, no state actor for Fourth Amendment claims) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. The dismissal was with prejudice, and Toms' motions to amend the complaint and disqualify defendants' attorney were denied.

RICOCopyright InfringementFourth AmendmentMotion to DismissPro Se LitigationBreach of ContractEconomic DuressFraud AllegationsConspiracyEmployment Termination
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2015

Masciotta v. Clarkstown Central School District

Plaintiff Tracy Masciotta, on behalf of her daughter V.M., filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state law against individual school employees and the Clarkstown Central School District. The complaint alleged violations of constitutional rights (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments; New York State Constitution) and state common law torts, stemming from a strip search and phone search of V.M. for alleged self-cutting without parental consent. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment and Substantive Due Process claims against the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds, finding that searches for medical purposes were not clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and the conduct was not sufficiently "conscience-shocking" to violate due process given the legitimate governmental purpose. The Section 1983 conspiracy claim was withdrawn by the Plaintiff, and constitutional claims against the School District were dismissed due to insufficient pleading of a municipal policy or custom. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state tort claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

School searchStudent rightsFourth AmendmentDue ProcessQualified immunityMonell liabilityStrip searchSchool nurseCivil rightsMotion to dismiss
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2015

Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third & Fourth Departments

This putative class action challenges New York laws prohibiting non-lawyer equity ownership in law firms, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the dormant Commerce Clause. The case was remanded from the Court of Appeals after an initial dismissal for lack of standing. Plaintiffs Jacoby & Meyers, LLP and Jacoby & Meyers USA II PLLC argued these laws impede their ability to raise capital and expand legal services. However, the District Court concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges were without merit. The court found that the proposed activity constituted commercial conduct, not protected speech or association, and that the state laws were rationally related to New York's legitimate interest in regulating the legal profession. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was granted.

First AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDormant Commerce ClauseLegal Profession RegulationNon-Lawyer Equity OwnershipLaw Firm FinancingConstitutional LawFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationEqual Protection
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Wade

The plaintiff, Carmina Perez, initiated an action against Ricky L. Wade, the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Drug Task Force, Henry County, Tennessee, and Monte Belew, alleging violations of constitutional amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims against the Task Force as it was deemed a state entity entitled to sovereign immunity. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against Wade and Belew in their official capacities, applying the Ex Parte Young exception to allow prospective injunctive relief, despite some requested relief being retrospective.

Eleventh Amendment Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983Judgment on the PleadingsState Sovereign ImmunityOfficial Capacity SuitsEx Parte Young DoctrineProspective Injunctive ReliefDrug Task ForceTennessee LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Diamond URS Huntsville, LLC

Plaintiffs Melisa Carter and Chris Smith initiated a lawsuit against the City of Huntsville and Officers Stacey Smith and Christopher Myers, alleging civil rights violations including excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment, alongside state common law torts. The Court denied the defendants' motion to sever claims, emphasizing the common questions of law and fact related to municipal liability. State-law tort claims against the individual officers were dismissed with prejudice, reaffirmed under the Texas Tort Claims Act's statutory immunity provisions. The Court granted the motion to dismiss § 1983/Fourth Amendment claims against the City and the officers in their official capacities, finding insufficient pleading of a widespread unconstitutional municipal policy. However, the motion to dismiss § 1983/Fourth Amendment claims against Officers Myers and Smith in their individual capacities was denied, as genuine issues of material fact were found regarding the objective unreasonableness of their actions and the lack of probable cause, thus precluding qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

Civil RightsExcessive ForceUnreasonable Search and SeizureQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissRule 21 SeveranceFalse ArrestFourth AmendmentSection 1983
References
155
Showing 1-10 of 4,803 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