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
Mar 13, 2009

Nnebe v. Daus

This case involves a putative class action brought by taxi drivers and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance against officials of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and the City of New York. Plaintiffs challenged the TLC's policy of summarily suspending taxi drivers' licenses upon arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing, arguing violations of procedural and substantive due process, and Fifth Amendment rights. The court dismissed claims against the TLC due to its non-suable status and found the NYTWA lacked standing. Ultimately, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, determining that neither a pre-deprivation hearing nor a more extensive post-deprivation hearing was constitutionally required given the governmental interest in public safety. The court also rejected substantive due process and fair notice challenges, and dismissed the Fifth Amendment claim. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, closing the case.

Taxi LicensureSummary SuspensionDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentClass ActionStandingGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative LawPublic Safety
References
54
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

Campo v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Helen Campo, widow of a former NYC Department of Sanitation employee, sued the City of New York and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) after she was denied survivor's benefits following her husband's death. Her husband had retired on disability and allegedly selected a pension option providing survivor's benefits, but NYCERS claimed no such selection was received, defaulting him to a plan without these benefits. Campo contended she was deprived of a property right without due process, challenging the adequacy of NYCERS' administrative procedures and their refusal to grant her a hearing. The court, applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test, determined that a pre-deprivation hearing was not required for pension benefits and that existing post-deprivation state remedies, such as an Article 78 proceeding or breach of contract action, provided adequate due process. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiff's motion for sanctions was denied.

Due processSurvivor benefitsPension rightsAdministrative lawMotion to dismissConstitutional lawFederal litigationRetirement systemProperty interestPost-deprivation remedies
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McArthur v. Bell

Jeffrey C. McArthur, a pro se plaintiff and former Suffolk County police officer, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of due process during child support modification proceedings initiated by his ex-wife, Nancy Bell, in 1989. McArthur also brought pendent state claims for conspiracy, fraud, deceit, and abuse of process. Defendants include Nancy Bell, Joan Goldrick, SCDAC, County of Suffolk, J. Gary Waldvogel, Sidney Vann, and John Doe defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim by not demonstrating a deprivation of property without due process and insufficient allegations against state actors and for conspiracy.

Federal Civil RightsDue ProcessChild SupportConspiracyMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionDomestic Relations ExceptionRooker-Feldman DoctrineState ActionRule 12(b)(1)
References
31
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anonymous v. Peters

This special proceeding, initiated under CPLR article 78 and converted into a declaratory judgment action, challenges the constitutionality of Social Services Law § 422. The petitioner argues that the statute violates procedural due process by allowing names to be added to the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment without a prior hearing and by lacking a time limit for post-deprivation hearings. Judge Leonard B. Austin dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutory scheme provides sufficient procedural safeguards, including a post-deprivation hearing with a higher standard of proof, which adequately protects due process rights while serving the State's compelling interest in child protection.

Constitutional LawDue ProcessChild Abuse RegisterSocial Services LawProcedural SafeguardsStigma Plus TestDeclaratory JudgmentArticle 78 ProceedingState InterestChild Protection
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lacorte v. Hudacs

Plaintiffs Kenneth P. Lacorte and Lacorte Electrical Construction previously admitted to violating New York State Labor Laws by underpaying employees on public works projects, later pleading guilty to grand larceny. They filed a § 1983 complaint, alleging various defendants conspired to deprive them of due process by initiating unfounded investigations, distributing defamatory information, and drafting legislation to declare them "non-responsible" bidders, thus disqualifying them from public works contracts. Earlier motions to dismiss by state and union defendants were granted. This decision addresses motions by the Albany County defendants (County of Albany, Michael Polovina, Richard Meyers, and Frank Commisso) to dismiss the complaint or for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a cause of action for violation of due process rights as low bidders on an Albany County Airport public works contract and denied dismissal of conspiracy allegations. Defamation allegations were also found sufficiently pleaded as an invasion of the Due Process liberty interest in reputation. Finally, the Court denied legislative immunity to defendants Meyer and Commisso, characterizing their actions in awarding the contract as administrative. Therefore, all motions by the Albany defendants were denied.

Civil RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Public Works ContractsLow BidderDefamationLiberty InterestLegislative ImmunityAdministrative ActConspiracy
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Schroeder

The case involves a parent union's action to reclaim property from a local union after revoking its charter without notice or a hearing. The International constitution allowed the president to revoke charters and transfer property, with an appeal process. The lower court found a due process deprivation and unlawful forfeiture. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment dismissal, stating that important legal questions regarding property title and due process, especially concerning whether local unions held property in trust for the International, were not adequately developed in the record. Further proof, such as the charter, was deemed necessary to clarify the defendants' property ownership rights.

Union disputeCharter revocationDue processProperty rightsSummary judgmentLocal union propertyParent unionInternational constitutionReplevinForfeiture
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,002 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