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

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosby v. State

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff argued that the statute, which limits attorney fees in workers' compensation cases, violated her rights to privacy, freedom to contract, and equal protection. The Supreme Court at Special Term granted summary judgment to the defendant, the Workers’ Compensation Board, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the constitutionality of section 24, finding no violation of the plaintiff’s rights. The court reasoned that the right to privacy does not extend to attorney contracts, the freedom to contract is subject to reasonable police power limitations, and the fee limitations serve a rational legislative purpose of protecting claimants, thus satisfying equal protection requirements.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney FeesConstitutional LawRight to PrivacyFreedom to ContractEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentAppealPolice PowerDeclaratory Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Lesline v. State

An inmate, the claimant, appealed the dismissal of his claim against the State of New York. He sought damages alleging severe emotional distress after his photograph, taken during an educational program at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, was published in the New York Times without his consent. The claimant asserted violations of his statutory and constitutional privacy rights, and cruel and unusual punishment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that public policy bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the State. It also found no factual basis for claims of malice, and determined that the photograph, illustrating an article of general public interest, did not infringe upon privacy rights under constitutional law or New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51, as it was not used for trade or advertising. The argument regarding cruel and unusual punishment was also deemed unfounded.

Privacy RightsCivil Rights LawIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCruel and Unusual PunishmentInmate RightsPublication without ConsentCourt of ClaimsAppellate DecisionGovernment LiabilityNew York State Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2008

Pelosi v. Spota

Daniel Pelosi filed a pro se Section 1983 action against District Attorney Thomas J. Spota, III, and Assistant District Attorney Janet Albertson, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Pelosi claimed that the defendants improperly obtained and used his psychiatric evaluation from a 1995 Workman’s Compensation trial during his 2004 criminal trial for Murder in the Second Degree. He sought a declaratory order, $150,000,000 in compensatory damages, and attorney's fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Pelosi had no constitutional right to privacy in the medical report because it was marked as a court exhibit and thereby became part of the public record in the prior civil trial. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that information already in the public record loses any constitutional right to privacy.

Section 1983Constitutional RightsRight to PrivacyFourteenth AmendmentMedical Records ConfidentialityPublic RecordMotion to DismissPsychiatric EvaluationWorkman's CompensationCriminal Proceedings
References
80
Case No. 1:13-CV-1184
Regular Panel Decision

Hancock v. Cnty. of Rensselaer

Plaintiffs, employees of the Rensselaer County Jail, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants infringed their Fourteenth Amendment rights to privacy in their medical records by improperly accessing them through Samaritan Hospital's electronic system. The court initially granted summary judgment for defendants, but the Second Circuit vacated and remanded. On remand, the court granted summary judgment and qualified immunity to individual defendants Jack Mahar, David Hetman, and Elaine Young, dismissing claims against them with prejudice, finding that a constitutional right to privacy in non-serious, non-stigmatizing medical conditions was not 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged violations (2007, 2009, 2011). However, the court denied summary judgment for the County of Rensselaer, concluding that questions of fact remain regarding Sheriff Mahar's actions, and whether they constitute a basis for municipal liability, which is distinct from individual qualified immunity.

Civil RightsQualified ImmunityFourteenth AmendmentPrivacy RightsMedical RecordsSummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityCounty EmployeesSick Leave PolicyElectronic Medical Records
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosby v. WORKERS'COMP.

The case addresses the constitutionality of Section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which mandates Workers’ Compensation Board approval for attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff argued that this regulation infringed upon her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by restricting her choice of legal counsel and ability to negotiate fee arrangements. The court dismissed claims under the State Constitution, citing Article I, Section 18. It also rejected the argument that the fee restrictions violated the federal right to privacy, classifying the choice of legal representation as an economic decision rather than a fundamental personal one. Furthermore, the court found a rational basis for the equal protection challenge, asserting that the law reasonably protects claimants from disadvantageous fee agreements, a protection not required by employers or insurance carriers. Consequently, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision upholding the constitutionality of Workers' Compensation Law Section 24.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorneys' FeesConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRight to CounselPrivacy RightsEconomic RegulationState Constitutional LawFederal Constitutional Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

This appeal addresses the constitutional challenges brought by trade associations representing automobile manufacturers against New York's New Car Lemon Law alternative arbitration mechanism and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs argued that General Business Law § 198-a (k) unconstitutionally deprived manufacturers of their right to a jury trial, access to Supreme Court, and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority. The court ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies, particularly vehicle replacement, are equitable, thus preserving the right to a jury trial. It also upheld the arbitration mechanism as a reasonable alternative for dispute resolution, affirming its constitutionality regarding court access and delegation of authority. However, the court found one implementing regulation, 13 NYCRR 300.17 (c), invalid as it contravened the statute by precluding evidence of further repairs, effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of liability.

Constitutional LawArbitrationLemon LawConsumer ProtectionGeneral Business LawRight to Jury TrialEquitable RemediesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,027 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