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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2007

Assoko v. City of New York

Seventeen homeowners ("Plaintiffs") brought suit against the City of New York, NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Danois Architects, and other public and private defendants. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations (Equal Protection and Due Process) and state law torts arising from the purchase of defective government-subsidized homes in Central Harlem. They claimed inadequate inspections by the City, wrongful issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, and denial of independent legal and engineering assistance. District Judge Richard J. Holwell granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all federal claims. The Equal Protection claim was dismissed for failing to identify specific disparate treatment or irrational governmental action. The Due Process claim was dismissed as plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in housing regulation enforcement or the non-issuance of Certificates, and the wrongful issuance did not constitute a constitutional injury. The Title VI Civil Rights Act claim was dismissed due to conclusory allegations of discrimination. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Equal Protection and Title VI claims, but not the Due Process claim, which was deemed futile.

HousingConstitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseCivil Rights Act of 1964Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissProperty InterestsGovernment SubsidiesDefective ConstructionNew York City
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2015

Masciotta v. Clarkstown Central School District

Plaintiff Tracy Masciotta, on behalf of her daughter V.M., filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state law against individual school employees and the Clarkstown Central School District. The complaint alleged violations of constitutional rights (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments; New York State Constitution) and state common law torts, stemming from a strip search and phone search of V.M. for alleged self-cutting without parental consent. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment and Substantive Due Process claims against the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds, finding that searches for medical purposes were not clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and the conduct was not sufficiently "conscience-shocking" to violate due process given the legitimate governmental purpose. The Section 1983 conspiracy claim was withdrawn by the Plaintiff, and constitutional claims against the School District were dismissed due to insufficient pleading of a municipal policy or custom. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state tort claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

School searchStudent rightsFourth AmendmentDue ProcessQualified immunityMonell liabilityStrip searchSchool nurseCivil rightsMotion to dismiss
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koutrakos v. Long Island College Hospital

This case addresses the distribution of funds from a wrongful death settlement, specifically concerning a workmen's compensation lien and plaintiff's attorney fees. The court examined whether Workmen's Compensation Law § 29, subd. 1, which mandates full reimbursement of the carrier's lien without contribution to attorney fees, is constitutional. It found the provision unconstitutional, arguing it unjustly burdens the plaintiff—a widow with infant children—by forcing her to cover legal costs for the carrier's benefit. The court concluded that such a statutory requirement violates due process and equal protection clauses of both Federal and New York State Constitutions, and abrogates the constitutional right to a full recovery for death-related injuries.

Wrongful DeathWorkmen's Compensation LienAttorney's FeesConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionUnjust EnrichmentSubrogationSettlement DisbursementJudiciary Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers

An employer initiated a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against the United Packinghouse Workers of America and other labor organizations for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, citing strikes and work stoppages in New York in March 1948. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, challenging the court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and arguing that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act was unconstitutional. They contended it exceeded Article III, Section 2 limitations, infringed upon the Tenth Amendment, and violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause through discriminatory application to unincorporated labor organizations and improper service of process. The court, however, denied all motions. It affirmed that Congress, under the Commerce Clause, constitutionally created substantive federal rights for enforcing collective bargaining agreements and validly established federal jurisdiction and procedural rules for such suits, including service of process on labor organizations.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractFederal JurisdictionConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseTenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

The case involves a lawsuit against a doctor and hospitals concerning the detention and testing of an infant (A.E.) for suspected child abuse, and their role in the subsequent removal of all infant children from parental custody. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including procedural and substantive due process, and Fourth Amendment rights, alongside New York state common law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, medical malpractice, and gross negligence. The court granted summary judgment on procedural due process, § 1983 malicious prosecution, state law malicious prosecution, and unlawful imprisonment claims, and dismissed substantive due process claims related to A.E.'s hospital detention. However, the court denied summary judgment for Infant Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, all plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims related to the court-ordered removal, and Infant Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and gross negligence claims, deeming these suitable for trial.

child abusecivil rightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentmedical malpracticegross negligencesummary judgmentqualified immunityparental rights
References
59
Case No. 96
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2017

American Economy Insurance Company v. State of New York

The New York Court of Appeals examined the constitutionality of a 2013 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, which closed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to new applications. Plaintiff insurance companies argued this imposed unfunded liabilities for policies finalized before the amendment, violating constitutional clauses. The Appellate Division had found the amendment unconstitutional as retroactively applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that even assuming a retroactive impact, it was constitutionally permissible under the Contract, Takings, and Due Process Clauses. The court found the amendment did not impair contracts, identify a vested property interest, or violate due process, as its retroactive application served a rational legislative purpose to benefit New York businesses.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawRetroactive LegislationContract ClauseTakings ClauseDue ProcessSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesConstitutional LawLegislative AmendmentPolicy Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyh v. Property Clerk of the City of New York Police Department

Plaintiff Evelyn Leyh initiated a federal action against the New York City Police Department and its Property Clerk, seeking the return of her seized automobile and alleging constitutional violations. She claimed deprivation of property without due process, that the forfeiture provision of the New York City Administrative Code constituted a bill of attainder, and malicious prosecution. While a state court had previously ruled in her favor regarding the forfeiture, the federal court addressed her remaining claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and bill of attainder claims, upholding the constitutionality of the property seizure procedures based on prior federal rulings. Additionally, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it as all federal claims had been resolved.

Due ProcessBill of AttainderMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentCivil ForfeitureAutomobile Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Supplemental JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law Claims
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 13,060 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