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

Thomas v. Sullivan

Gertrude Thomas challenged the Social Security Administration's termination of her widow's benefits. After living with Joseph Thomas for 47 years in a common law marriage and receiving benefits, she was denied them following his death because his prior, undissolved ceremonial marriage to Janie Thomas was deemed valid. Gertrude argued that 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B) violated equal protection by granting benefits to those in invalid ceremonial marriages but not invalid common law marriages. The District Court upheld the denial, finding a rational basis for the distinction in preventing fraud and easing administration, and dismissed the complaint.

Social Security ActWidow's BenefitsCommon Law Marriage ValidityCeremonial Marriage ValidityEqual Protection ChallengeRational Basis TestStatutory InterpretationFraud PreventionAdministrative EfficiencyDeemed Widow Provision
References
3
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00446 [168 AD3d 955]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2019

Matter of Thomas v. Town of Southeast, N.Y.

Petitioner Timothy Thomas, a road maintenance equipment operator, was accused of 12 counts of misconduct by his employer, the Town of Southeast, New York. Allegations included disobeying orders, unauthorized absence, and threatening a superior. Following an administrative hearing under Civil Service Law § 75, the hearing officer found Thomas guilty of 6 charges and recommended termination, citing the nature of incidents, lack of credibility/remorse, and prior disciplinary record. The Town Board adopted this recommendation, leading to Thomas's employment termination. Thomas initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding for review. The Appellate Division confirmed the Town's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the offenses.

CPLR Article 78Administrative LawPublic EmploymentMisconductTermination of EmploymentCivil Service LawSubstantial EvidenceJudicial ReviewPenalty DisproportionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. No. 29, No. 30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson v. City of New York , The Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni v. Gander Mountain

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in these appeals: whether a claimant’s schedule loss of use (SLU) award must always be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body “member” under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15. The Court clarified that separate SLU awards for distinct injuries to the same statutory member are permissible, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury resulted in an increased loss of use. For Thomas Johnson, the Court affirmed the prior decision, concluding he failed to present sufficient evidence isolating the impairment caused solely by his knee injury, apart from his prior hip injury award. Conversely, for Joseph D. Liuni, the Court reversed and remitted the case, as Liuni had provided evidence through his expert that his elbow and shoulder injuries were separate pathologies, each contributing distinctly to the loss of use of his arm.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationKnee InjuryHip InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
29
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 04360 [151 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Thomas v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff, Michael P. Thomas, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education (DOE), Chancellor Farina, and Communications Workers of America District One (CWA), alleging fraudulent and wasteful acts related to CWA's use of public school property for a meeting. Thomas also accused the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) of fraudulently concealing these actions. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that CWA paid the customary fees for using the school premises, thus not constituting an illegal gift of money under the New York State Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that no cause of action under General Municipal Law § 51 existed because there was no fraud or entirely illegal purpose, and Thomas could not use a taxpayer action to correct technical irregularities. Finally, the Court concluded that Thomas failed to plead a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation against SCI due to lack of intent to deceive and insufficient specificity in his allegations.

Taxpayer ActionFraudulent MisrepresentationWasteful ActsPublic School Property UseGift of MoneyGeneral Municipal LawCPLR 3016(b) Pleading RequirementsAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSufficiency of Pleadings
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Nassau County Correctional Center

Plaintiff Robert Thomas, an inmate, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Nassau County Correctional Center, Sheriff Edward Reilly, Officer Kenneth H. Williams, Nassau County, and the Director of Nassau County University Hospital, alleging inadequate medical treatment for an injured hand. The Nassau County defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a federal cause of action, arguing the allegations amounted to medical malpractice, not an Eighth Amendment violation. The court found that Thomas failed to allege a sufficiently serious medical condition or deliberate indifference from the defendants. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the Nassau County defendants and sua sponte dismissed claims against the director, both without prejudice. The plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Inadequate Medical CareDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentSection 1983Prisoner RightsMotion to DismissMedical MalpracticePro Se PlaintiffJail Conditions
References
38
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

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. KA 14-00721
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

SCZERBANIEWICZ, THOMAS, PEOPLE v

The case involves an appeal by Thomas Sczerbaniewicz from an Onondaga County Court order classifying him as a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommended a level one risk but applied an override to level three due to a diagnosed psychological abnormality impacting impulse control. The County Court, while not applying the override, determined an upward departure to level three was warranted based on aggravating circumstances. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence that aggravating circumstances, such as the defendant's involvement in a child pornography ring, possession of over 1,500 child pornography images, and admitted fantasies in prison, justified the upward departure. The court also rejected the defendant's request for a downward departure, concluding that his cited mitigating factors were outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk AssessmentUpward DepartureChild PornographyPsychological AbnormalityAggravating CircumstancesDownward DepartureAppellate ReviewCriminal Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 20,512 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