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

Alvarado v. City of New York

Plaintiff Eris Alvarado filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against parole officers Eunice Green, Thomas Silagi, and Arcadio Almenas, alleging various constitutional violations, including unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, and denial of due process. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the claims related to search, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and malicious abuse of process, finding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that probable cause for arrest existed based on a robbery indictment. However, the court denied summary judgment on the denial of due process claim, citing a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Alvarado knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing, thus precluding dismissal based on qualified immunity for this specific claim.

Parole ViolationDue ProcessSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSearch and Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Parole OfficersWaiver of Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KCP Food Co., Inc. v. Sava

K.C.P. Food Co., Inc. appealed the denial of a sixth preference visa petition for Christoforos Bollas by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The District Director and Associate Commissioner denied the petition due to K.C.P.'s failure to demonstrate financial ability to pay the proffered wage, relying on the company's corporate tax return. K.C.P. argued the denial was an abuse of discretion, unsupported by evidence, and violated Fifth Amendment due process. The Court, presided over by Judge Leisure, found that the INS's decision was not an abuse of discretion, as K.C.P. failed to meet its burden of proof regarding financial capability and did not present additional evidence at the administrative level. The Court also dismissed the due process claim, stating K.C.P. had no acquired property interest. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the complaint.

Immigration LawVisa PetitionSixth Preference VisaAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsFinancial AbilityProffered WageCorporate Tax Return
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2008

HILFIGER v. Alger

Plaintiff Loretta Hilfiger filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Steuben County Department of Social Services (DSS) and several officials, alleging due process violations and retaliation following the denial of her child day-care benefits for July 2004. Hilfiger was verbally informed of the denial due to untimely notice of her pregnancy-related disability leave and the birth of her daughter. An administrative hearing later reversed DSS's decision, citing procedural deficiencies and improper delegation of authority to a private contractor. However, DSS reaffirmed the denial on remand, which Hilfiger did not appeal. The District Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that the benefit denial was a "random and unauthorized" act, adequately addressed by post-deprivation remedies. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim due to lack of evidence, concluding no viable federal constitutional claim was presented.

Child Care BenefitsDue Process ClauseSummary JudgmentCivil Rights LitigationAdministrative LawState RegulationsRetaliation ClaimPost-Deprivation RemediesPre-Deprivation NoticeDelegation of Authority
References
39
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
Aug 18, 1997

Merlino v. Schneider

The petitioner, a Spanish-speaking community-service worker, was denied civil service employment as a probation investigator after failing the oral portion of an examination. She challenged this denial, arguing that the oral exam lacked objective standards and that she was denied proper administrative review due to the respondents' refusal to provide an audiotape of her examination. The Supreme Court initially denied her petition, dismissing the proceeding. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding significant procedural shortcomings in the examination process and the administrative appeal. The court concluded that the petitioner's right to have her competency judged in a competitive examination process was violated and remitted the matter to the respondents for reconsideration pursuant to objective standards.

Civil ServiceOral ExaminationEmployment CertificationAdministrative ReviewObjective StandardsDue ProcessPublic EmploymentRemandAppealDiscretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1998

Iannelli v. Lumelite Plastics Corp.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant should receive tentative payments while the record was further developed. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found an accident, notice, and causal relationship for a back injury and awarded benefits. The carrier challenged this decision, claiming a denial of due process for not being allowed to take testimony from a chiropractor and raising apportionment issues based on a consultant's report. The Board rejected the due process claim, modified the awards to be tentative, and continued the case for further development. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no due process violation or prejudice to the carrier, as the awards were tentative and the carrier had the opportunity to fully develop the record; furthermore, the carrier would be able to recoup any overpayments.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryDisability ApportionmentDue ProcessTentative Rate PaymentsMedical ControversyRecoupment of OverpaymentsConstitutional RightsWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF HEMPSTEAD SCHOOL D.

The plaintiff, a tenured Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the Hempstead School District, had his position eliminated. A new position, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, was created with similar duties, but the plaintiff was not offered it nor given a pre-termination hearing. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and New York Education Law section 2510(1). The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff was deprived of a property right without procedural due process. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a pre-termination hearing on the 'similarity' of the positions. A trial is deemed necessary to determine the actual similarity of the jobs and whether the plaintiff suffered actual injury from the denial of due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentProperty InterestTenured AdministratorPosition EliminationPre-termination HearingJob SimilarityEducation LawMotion to DismissCompensatory Damages
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruggiero v. Prack

Plaintiff, an inmate, asserts multiple claims against correctional facility staff and DOCCS officials, including denial of due process at disciplinary hearings, retaliation, and cruel and inhumane conditions of confinement. The claims stem from his time at Southport Correctional Facility, specifically regarding mechanical restraints, exposure to health risks from unsupervised inmate porters, and exercise deprivations. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The judge granted summary judgment for defendant Bartlett on one due process claim but denied it for other defendants on retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims. Plaintiff's due process claim against Donahue for the November 2010 hearing was granted on liability. The case will proceed on several issues, including the mechanical restraint policy against Fischer and Prack, and Eighth Amendment claims against multiple defendants.

Inmate rightsDue ProcessEighth AmendmentCruel and unusual punishmentRetaliationPrison conditionsMechanical restraintsDisciplinary hearingsCorrectional facilitiesSummary judgment
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 13,225 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