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

Macintyre v. Moore

Pro se plaintiffs Stephen R. MacIntyre and Scott E. Sullivan sued Jack W. Moore and the Town of Henrietta, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and unjust enrichment, stemming from their alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the unjust enrichment claim and the FLSA claim against Moore. The court granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding an implied-in-fact contractual relationship barred it, and dismissed the FLSA claim against Moore in his official capacity as redundant. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA claim against Moore in his individual capacity, concluding that a public official can be held individually liable as an "employer" under the FLSA based on an "economic realities" test. Consequently, the FLSA claims against Moore in his individual capacity and the Town of Henrietta will proceed.

MisclassificationIndependent ContractorFair Labor Standards ActFLSAUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityPublic Official LiabilityPro Se LitigationEconomic Realities Test
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02272 [237 AD3d 566]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Moore v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Moore appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Moore testified that he fell when a ladder slipped out from under him. The defendants, Skanska USA Building, Inc. and others, submitted affidavits from managers denying Moore's account, specifically challenging his claim of being directed to fix a damper on a rush basis and asserting the accident could not have happened as he described. The court found that these conflicting accounts raised triable issues of fact concerning the plaintiff's version of events and his credibility. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment, determining that such issues are for a jury to resolve.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactCredibilityConstruction SafetyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkplace Accident
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04471 [196 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Omar v. Moore

Plaintiff Nasir Muzaid Omar brought an action against Michael Moore, II, and Sadeq Ahmed, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment stemming from unsatisfactory construction work. Following a prior appeal where the unjust enrichment claim against Ahmed survived, and the discontinuance of the action against Moore, Ahmed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the sole remaining unjust enrichment cause of action. The Supreme Court granted Ahmed's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the judgment, denied Ahmed's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the unjust enrichment cause of action, finding Ahmed failed to meet his prima facie burden.

Summary judgmentUnjust enrichmentBreach of contractNegligenceConstruction disputeAppellate reviewPrima facie showingFraudulent inducementQuasi-contractMotion practice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Potter

Darcy Moore, a former supervisor at the United States Postal Service (USPS), filed a lawsuit against the Postmaster General of the USPS under Title VII and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). A trial on the Title VII claims resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The court then considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Moore's FMLA claim, which alleged interference with FMLA benefits and retaliation. Moore claimed he was improperly charged as absent without leave instead of being granted FMLA leave and faced disciplinary action. The court found that Moore failed to follow the proper procedures for requesting leave, leading to the dismissal of his FMLA interference claim. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support a causal connection between Moore seeking FMLA leave and any adverse employment actions, thereby granting summary judgment and dismissing the FMLA retaliation claim and the entire complaint.

FMLATitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawRetaliationInterference with BenefitsAbsent Without LeaveFederal Civil ProcedurePro Se LitigationUSPS
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. City of Yonkers

Plaintiff Nekesha Moore was injured after tripping in a sidewalk depression in front of a property owned by 1225 Yonkers Ave. Realty Corp. and leased by 1225 Launderie Corp. The depression was allegedly caused by workers from Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. who had removed a section of the sidewalk. New York Ladder & Scaffold Corp. (NY Ladder) was contracted by the tenant to install a sidewalk shed. The Supreme Court denied NY Ladder's motion for summary judgment. However, an appellate court found that NY Ladder demonstrated it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, its contract was not a comprehensive property maintenance obligation, and it did not create the dangerous condition or have notice of it. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against NY Ladder.

Sidewalk depressionTrip and fallPremises liabilitySummary judgmentDuty of careContractual obligationSidewalk shedNotice of conditionAppellate reviewTort law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Time Warner GRC 9

Walter Moore filed a discrimination lawsuit against his employer, Time-Warner, alleging termination based on disability, race, and gender, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Moore, a probationary employee, claimed to suffer from diabetes and high blood pressure and attributed missed training sessions and difficulties to his health. Time-Warner moved for summary judgment, asserting Moore could not establish a prima facie case. The court found Moore was not "disabled" under the ADA, failed to demonstrate he was "otherwise qualified" for the job, and did not inform his employer of a need for accommodation. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support claims of race or sex discrimination. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and Moore's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationPrima Facie CaseProbationary Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education & Moore

This case involves an appeal by an unnamed petitioner (employer) seeking to vacate an arbitration award in Otsego County. The dispute originated from a grievance filed by Anthony Moore, a custodial worker, concerning his transfer to a new assignment. Moore's grievance was denied at earlier steps, leading the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) to move it to arbitration. The petitioner contended that the grievance was time-barred due to Moore's late filing and CSEA's late referral to arbitration. The arbitrator rejected these arguments, deeming the grievance arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's application to vacate this arbitration award, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, finding the arbitrator's determination to be rational and within their authority.

Arbitration AwardGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementTimeliness DisputeVacate Arbitration AwardCPLR 7511Public Sector EmploymentCustodial WorkerEmployee TransferJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. INA Life Ins. Co. of New York

Plaintiff John A. Moore sought to recover disability benefits from defendants CIGNA and INA Life Insurance Company of New York under ERISA-governed employee insurance plans, claiming injuries from a taxi accident. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Azrack, conducted a bench trial based on written submissions. The court found insufficient objective proof that the alleged taxi accident occurred, especially after an investigation revealed the identified taxi was out of service years prior. Additionally, even if an accident occurred, the court determined that Moore's disability stemmed from a pre-existing degenerative back condition, not a covered incident. Therefore, the court denied Moore's claims and entered judgment for the defendants.

ERISADisability BenefitsInsurance Claim DenialPre-existing ConditionDe Novo ReviewMedical EvidenceAccident InsuranceCausationDegenerative Disc DiseaseBench Trial
References
13
Case No. SDO 360686
Regular
Jun 22, 2008

HANK MOORE vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for rehearing regarding Hank Moore's disability retirement. The Board found the County's arguments regarding the timeliness of their petition and the introduction of newly discovered medical evidence unpersuasive. The existing evidence, particularly from Dr. Esch, sufficiently supported the finding that Mr. Moore's disability was industrially caused.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalPERS disability retirementdeputy sheriffindustrial injurypermanent disabilityGovernment Code section 21166petition for rehearingnewly discovered evidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorOfficial Address Record
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 106 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