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
Apr 10, 2018

Greenaway v. Cnty. of Nassau

This case addresses post-verdict motions following a jury trial where plaintiffs Shuay'b Greenaway, Sharon Knight, and Avery Knight sued the Incorporated Village of Hempstead, County of Nassau, and several police officers for constitutional violations including false imprisonment, excessive force, and unlawful entry. The jury found defendants liable on multiple counts, awarding substantial damages. The District Court largely denied motions for judgment as a matter of law. While upholding most liability findings, the Court granted remittitur for Mr. Greenaway's excessive force award, reducing it to $2.5 million, and for the unlawful entry/trespass claim, reducing it to $10,000. Punitive damages against individual officers were upheld, but awards for gross negligence and failure to intervene were reduced to zero.

Excessive ForceFalse ImprisonmentUnlawful EntryTrespassMunicipal LiabilityPunitive DamagesRule 50(b) MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturQualified Immunity
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers

Plaintiff Charles B. MeLaurin filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous New Rochelle police officers and city officials, including Peter Kornas, Louis Falcone, Brian Fagan, David Lornegan, Edward Martinez, Dominic Procopio, Mayor Timothy Idoni, and the City of New Rochelle. MeLaurin alleged constitutional rights violations stemming from two arrests: one for assault on August 6, 2001, and another for criminal contempt on September 28, 2002. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, finding their actions objectively reasonable or lacking personal involvement, or due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim or comply with state law. Claims against Officers Lynch, Lore, Conca, Al-Fattaah, Kamau, and Navarette were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. Officer Dina Lynn Moretti's motion was converted to one for summary judgment, giving the plaintiff 45 days to provide evidence regarding probable cause for the second arrest. State law claims were also dismissed due to non-compliance with New York General Municipal Law notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityPro Se LitigationMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Civil Rights Violation
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ostensen v. Suffolk County

Nancy Ostensen initiated an action against Suffolk County, its Police Department, Officer Thomas Gallagher, and private individuals Patricia Capucci and Rosemary Kneeht, asserting constitutional violations under Section 1983 and various New York state law claims. The Plaintiff alleged unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations stemming from an incident where the private defendants entered a residence where Ostensen lived, with Officer Gallagher's alleged non-intervention. The County Defendants sought summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, determining there was no evidence of conspiracy between the state and private actors, that Ostensen lacked a possessory interest in the property for an unreasonable seizure claim, and that Officer Gallagher was shielded by qualified immunity as his actions were objectively reasonable. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentState ActionConspiracyMunicipal Liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2012

Claim of Cook v. East Greenbush Police Department

The claimant, a patrol officer for the East Greenbush Police Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following a traumatic incident in January 2009 involving an armed suspect. His claim was denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, who found that the events giving rise to his injury were part of his job responsibilities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for a mental injury from work-related stress to be compensable, the stress must exceed that normally encountered in the work environment. The court concluded that while the specific encounter was "extraordinary," the possibility of needing deadly force is an inherent part of a police officer's regular duties, regardless of department size. Therefore, the Board's decision to deny benefits was upheld.

Posttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental InjuryWork-Related StressPolice OfficerAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentNormal Work EnvironmentDeadly Force
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond v. City of New York

The case concerns a plaintiff police officer who sued New York City for injuries sustained during a high-speed vehicle pursuit initiated by his partner. The officer alleged violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law provisions and an internal Police Department memorandum (Memo No. 3) concerning pursuit policies. While a jury found no violation of traffic laws, it concluded that Memo No. 3 was breached, a finding upheld by the Appellate Division. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Memo No. 3, which offers discretionary guidelines rather than imposing "clear legal duties," cannot form the basis for a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. The court emphasized that such policy pronouncements allowing professional judgment are not the type of governmental "requirement" envisioned by the statute, thus dismissing the complaint.

high-speed pursuitpolice misconductGeneral Municipal Law § 205-edepartmental directiveofficer discretionline-of-duty injuryfirefighters' rulestatutory cause of actiongovernmental liabilitytort law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Petitioners, the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA) and Richard McPhillips, challenged an emergency regulation by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) that mandated unvaccinated personnel in psychiatric facilities wear face masks during influenza season, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division determined the case was not moot, as the subsequently adopted permanent regulation presented the same alleged infirmities. On the merits, the court upheld the regulation, granting OMH significant judicial deference due to its expertise. OMH's decision was based on Department of Health expertise, its own assessment of patient vulnerability, and the efficacy of masks. The court found that OMH adequately addressed concerns regarding communication and role modeling, and reasonably justified exemptions for visitors and attorneys. The judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.

RegulationsPublic HealthMandatory MasksInfluenzaPsychiatric FacilitiesWorkers' RightsAdministrative LawJudicial DeferenceMootnessCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03504 [195 AD3d 1115]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2021

Matter of New York State Corr. Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

This appeal concerns an arbitration award involving a correction officer, Pedro Norde, disciplined by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for unauthorized phone calls and false statements. Norde's union, NYSCOPBA, grieved the discipline, leading to an arbitration where the arbitrator dismissed some charges as untimely and lacking particularization, based on "due process" interpretations not explicitly in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Supreme Court confirmed this award. However, the Appellate Division found the arbitrator exceeded his authority by imposing requirements beyond the CBA's terms regarding the criminal acts exception to timeliness and the standard for notice particularization. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the cross-motion to vacate the arbitration award concerning the dismissed charges, and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator for further proceedings.

Arbitration LawCollective BargainingEmployee DisciplineArbitrator OverreachTimeliness of ChargesNotice RequirementsAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Employee RightsCorrectional Officers
References
12
Case No. 09-CV-8140 (KMK)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

In Re Dayton

Plaintiffs Michael Dayton and Barbara Nieves, individually and as guardian for their five infant children, brought action against the City of Middletown, its police officers, Orange County, and the Department of Social Services Orange County (DSS) alleging federal and state law violations. The claims stemmed from a November 2008 incident involving an alleged attack by a felon and subsequent police actions, followed by Family Court proceedings where neglect findings were entered against the parents. The court granted DSS's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding it not a suable entity. Motions to dismiss the federal § 1983 Monell claims against Middletown and Orange County were granted without prejudice due to insufficient pleading of a municipal policy. State law claims against Orange County were dismissed without prejudice due to untimely notice of claim for adult plaintiffs, with infant claims requiring state court application. Claims arising from the Family Court's neglect finding and protective order were dismissed with prejudice under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but other allegations regarding Orange County's conduct during Family Court proceedings survived. The Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice, citing insufficient factual inconsistencies for dismissal prior to discovery. Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Civil Rights ViolationsFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissSummary JudgmentRooker-Feldman doctrineMonell claimFailure to Train
References
98
Showing 1-10 of 2,622 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