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

Boyd v. Heckler

Juanita Boyd appealed the termination of her Widow’s Insurance Benefits, provided under the Social Security Act. Her benefits were awarded in December 1977, but were later terminated following an application by Jeanette T. Monroe, who claimed to be Edward Boyd's first and valid wife. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Juanita Boyd was not entitled to benefits, awarding them instead to Jeanette Monroe, based on New York law concerning the presumption of marriage validity. The court affirmed the Secretary's decision, finding that the evidence supported the invalidity of the second marriage due to its short duration, lack of children, and the persuasive testimony and evidence from the first wife and her daughter indicating no divorce.

Widow's Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActMarriage ValidityPresumption of MarriageNew York LawEquitable ConsiderationsSecond MarriageDivorceAdministrative Law Judge DecisionAppellate Review
References
8
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01856 [192 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Pakniat v. Moor

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed the plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. The dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff resided and worked in Montreal, Canada, and failed to demonstrate that the alleged discriminatory conduct had any impact within New York. The court referenced Hoffman v Parade Publs. to reinforce that the HRLs protect state residents or nonresidents working in the state, requiring an in-state impact for jurisdiction. It clarified that legislative revisions to the State HRL did not alter this jurisdictional requirement and that arguments regarding increased remote work and the HRLs' deterrent purpose do not expand the statute's jurisdictional reach. The forum selection clause in the plaintiff's employment contract did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for these claims.

subject matter jurisdictionsexual harassmentretaliationHuman Rights Lawnonresident claimsNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Lawextraterritorialityremote workemployment contract
References
3
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 20,432 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