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

Patterson v. Colvin

Plaintiff Nikimia Patterson, acting pro se, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, a motion to which Patterson did not respond. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found that despite Patterson's severe impairments, including knee injuries and headaches, her depression was non-severe, and she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with limitations on bending or stooping. The court considered additional medical evidence concerning Patterson's right knee injury, submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ's decision, but determined it was not probative enough to warrant a remand, as Patterson's own testimony indicated an active lifestyle even with the injury. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the case.

Social Security DisabilitySSIDisability Insurance BenefitsALJ ReviewMedical ImpairmentKnee PainMeniscus TearOsteoarthritisResidual Functional CapacitySedentary Work
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04129 [150 AD3d 1131]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2017

Patterson v. Calogero

Rosemarie Patterson initiated an action against Richard Calogero and Timothy Hogue, alleging fraud and other claims stemming from the sale of her stock in Medical Recovery Collection Group, Inc. Patterson contended that Calogero and Hogue orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate revenue, thereby diminishing the corporation's value and fraudulently inducing her to sell her interest for an undervalued price. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that a previously executed general release precluded Patterson's claims against Calogero. Furthermore, the court found the claims against Hogue for aiding and abetting were unsustainable, and her individual fraud and tortious interference claims lacked the necessary legal elements.

FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConstructive TrustTortious Interference with ContractStock Purchase AgreementSeverance AgreementGeneral ReleaseCorporate SharesDerivative Claim
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1993

Patterson v. Army

Plaintiffs Patricia M. Patterson and Dr. Hoi Yat Kam, employees of Booth Memorial Medical Center, brought an action against Booth and others after allegedly being exposed to Formalin. Booth moved for summary judgment, arguing the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law. The IAS Court initially denied Booth's motion, citing factual disputes regarding coverage and Booth's knowledge of Formalin dangers. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting Booth's motion and dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that a Workers' Compensation policy was in place, covering the loss period and paying Patterson's medical bills, thus making Workers' Compensation the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from employment. The plaintiffs' argument of intentional injury by Booth was rejected, as the tort was not deemed intentional under the legal standard requiring a deliberate act to injure a particular employee.

Workers CompensationExclusivity ClauseSummary JudgmentFormalin ExposureOccupational DiseaseIntentional TortAppellate ReversalEmployer LiabilityPathologyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17

Patterson-Stevens (plaintiff) sought to vacate a July 24, 1995 judgment and amend its complaint against Local 17 (defendant). The original complaint sought an injunction to prevent arbitration of a grievance initiated by Local 17, which Patterson argued was untimely under a six-month statute of limitations. The court initially dismissed the case, lacking jurisdiction to issue an injunction. Patterson-Stevens then moved to vacate, arguing the complaint implicitly stated a claim for declaratory judgment. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice in its prior decision. Furthermore, the proposed amendment for declaratory relief was deemed futile, as there was no legal precedent supporting a statute of limitations for grievance submission, unlike federal court actions.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrationStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Vacate JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Xerox Corporation

Plaintiff Vanessa Patterson sued Xerox Corporation and Samuel Peterson, alleging discrimination based on national origin, race, and gender, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She also included common law claims for negligent supervision and retention. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against Peterson due to his status as a co-employee, and all common law negligence claims against both defendants, citing the exclusivity of the New York Worker's Compensation Law. However, the court denied dismissal of hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Xerox under Title VII, and against both Xerox and Peterson under the New York State Human Rights Law, finding them plausible and reasonably related to her EEOC charge.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionIndividual LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorker's Compensation Exclusivity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 20,407 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