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

Jackson v. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Flowers, Greenberg & Eisman, LLP

Vincent Jackson sued the law firm Abrams, Fensterman, et al., alleging improper termination after a hospitalization, in violation of FMLA, State HRL, and City HRL. The defendant denied liability, claiming Jackson was not its employee. The court previously denied summary judgment as premature to allow for the deposition of Howard Fensterman, who was identified as Jackson's personal chauffeur employer. After Fensterman's deposition, the court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the State and City HRL claims, finding Fensterman, not the firm, was Jackson's employer for those statutes due to the 'domestic service' exclusion and lack of firm control. However, the court denied summary judgment on the FMLA claim, determining a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding the firm's employer status under the 'economic realities' test, particularly concerning work performed by Jackson that could benefit the firm. The FMLA claim will proceed to a hearing.

Employment LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Human Rights LawEmployer DefinitionSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Realities TestJoint EmploymentDomestic Service ExemptionPersonal ChauffeurCorporate Liability
References
37
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08387 [133 AD3d 719]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Jackson v. Georgalos

Sheena Jackson, a postal worker, sued Jorge Georgalos and Joanne Guerrero-Georgalos for personal injuries sustained at their residence. Jackson alleged that as she delivered mail, the defendants' dog jumped on a screen door, causing it to open and the dog to run out. As she tried to avoid the dog, her ankle twisted, leading to a fall on the steps. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating their dog had no prior vicious propensities, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryDog BiteStrict LiabilityVicious PropensitiesSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseFactual Dispute
References
11
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner

This case concerns two New York City law firms, Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer and Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman, seeking damages from various transit unions and their officers following the April 1980 transit strike. The plaintiffs alleged several common-law causes of action, including prima facie tort and public nuisance, claiming economic losses due to the unlawful strike. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of the complaints. It ruled that while the Taylor Law does not prevent private damage actions, it also does not create a new statutory right to sue. Ultimately, the court concluded that the specific common-law claims were either not recognized under New York law or were insufficiently pleaded.

Public Employee StrikeTaylor LawPrivate Right of ActionPrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceIntentional Interference with BusinessThird-Party BeneficiaryUnion LiabilityCommon-Law RemediesLegislative Intent
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. City of New York

Nancy Jackson sued the City of New York and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with state law claims including assault, false arrest, and emotional distress. This action stems from an incident on March 26, 2010, in Queens, New York, where Jackson was pulled over, arrested, and charged with multiple offenses. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion, denying summary judgment on claims for unlawful seizure, false arrest, failure to intervene, and assault, concluding that genuine issues of material fact preclude a finding of probable cause. However, the court granted summary judgment for Defendants on claims of excessive force, battery, deliberate indifference, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision.

Civil RightsFalse ArrestUnlawful SeizureExcessive ForceQualified ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAssaultPolice Misconduct
References
66
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 05000
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2021

Begeal v. Jackson

Plaintiff Scott Begeal, an industrial painter, was injured after falling 12 feet from an aluminum ladder while erecting a ventilation stack for C&D Enterprises, owned by defendants Douglas Jackson et al. Begeal sued, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Both parties moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that Begeal established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the ladder slipped, causing his fall. The court determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate that Begeal's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, and any argument regarding comparative negligence was irrelevant given the established statutory violation. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting Begeal's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the order as modified.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Ladder FallSummary JudgmentProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSafety Device AdequacyAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentElevation Differential
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1998

Hernandez v. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

Plaintiff Sumaira Hernandez filed an action against her employer, Defendant Jackson Lewis, alleging quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful discrimination based on race and national origin, pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hernandez claimed that a billing coordinator, Mr. Mack, solicited sexual favors in exchange for overtime, and that the comptroller, Mr. Patterson, engaged in discriminatory practices regarding work assignments, bonuses, and promotions, and responded inappropriately to her complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing prompt action and insufficient evidence for various claims. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding employer liability, quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationDiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
16
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 20,427 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