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

In re Marcario

A child protective services worker from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services sought a court order under Family Court Act section 1034 to search premises believed to house an abused child. The application stemmed from a hotline report alleging abuse by Joseph Marcario, which he and his wife denied, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The court denied the application, finding the supporting affidavit, based on double hearsay from an unnamed and unreliable informant, lacked the probable cause required for a search warrant under the CPL and Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized the importance of due process for alleged perpetrators and also criticized the over 90-day delay in filing the application after the initial report.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court ActSearch Warrant ApplicationProbable CauseHearsay EvidenceAguilar TestDue ProcessFourth AmendmentChild Abuse InvestigationSuffolk County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Augustin v. Jablonsky

Defendants moved to decertify the class regarding special damages, arguing that such claims are too individualized. Plaintiffs opposed, contending that 'garden-variety emotional distress' damages should be determined class-wide. The Court previously awarded general damages of $500 per strip search for the injury to human dignity. However, it ruled that claims for emotional distress damages beyond this general award are inherently individualized and require separate proof, thus granting the defendants' motion to not extend class certification to special damages. The Court also addressed pre- and post-judgment interest and the distribution of the general damages award.

Class ActionStrip SearchEmotional DistressGeneral DamagesSpecial DamagesDecertificationRule 23(b)(3)Constitutional ViolationCivil RightsHuman Dignity
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Fernandez

Plaintiff Campbell, a construction worker, was arrested and strip-searched in a Poughkeepsie mini-mart during a drug raid by officers including David Fernandez and Lawrence Bartolotti. During the search, which occurred in a public area of the store, plaintiff was allegedly subjected to racial taunts and exposed, leading to the discovery of a small bag of marijuana. He later pleaded guilty to a violation. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that while there was probable cause for the initial search, the reasonableness of the strip search in a public setting and the officers' qualified immunity remain disputed issues of fact for a jury. Additionally, a claim against the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department concerning an alleged unconstitutional strip search policy will also proceed to trial.

Fourth AmendmentStrip SearchProbable CauseQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductRacial EpithetsUnreasonable SearchCriminal Procedure Law
References
8
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

This case addresses whether the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) is obligated under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to search for records held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 4 and 5 to documents in the Board's possession. Bloomberg L.P. initiated the suit after the Board's limited search and withholding of information related to financial crisis interventions. The court found the Board's search inadequate, mandating a search of FRBNY records per its own regulations. Additionally, it ruled that FOIA Exemptions 4 and 5 were improperly applied to the "Remaining Term Reports," ordering their disclosure. Consequently, the court granted Bloomberg’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Board’s.

FOIAFederal Reserve SystemAgency RecordsInformation DisclosureGovernment TransparencyFinancial CrisisSummary JudgmentFederal Reserve Bank of New YorkPublic InformationJudicial Review
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2002

Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District

A student (Plaintiff) sued the Rondout Valley Central School District, Principal William Cañero, and State Police member Leroy Seals after undergoing a strip search at school. The search was prompted by a report from a bus driver, Delilah Bilelo, whose son allegedly purchased marihuana from the plaintiff. Although no drugs were found, the plaintiff alleged unlawful detention and emotional distress. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and on appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court concluding that Leroy Seals was entitled to qualified immunity due to the ambiguous legal standards surrounding mixed police/school searches.

Search and SeizureQualified ImmunitySchool SearchPolice InvolvementReasonable SuspicionProbable CauseSummary JudgmentStudent RightsConstitutional RightsFourth Amendment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

James v. Goldberg

This dissenting opinion argues against the court's conclusion regarding public assistance programs for dependent children. Judge MeLEAN contends that welfare worker visits to homes are for assistance, not searches, and thus should not be considered 'unreasonable searches.' He criticizes the notion of requiring a warrant, arguing it either undermines the program's purpose or becomes a mere formality that introduces hostility into crucial welfare worker-mother relationships. The judge distinguishes prior search cases like Camara and See, asserting they do not mandate the court's current ruling, which he believes negatively impacts social welfare administration. He would deny the motion and dismiss the action.

Public AssistanceDependent ChildrenWelfare ProgramsFourth AmendmentUnreasonable SearchWarrant RequirementHome VisitsSocial Welfare LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green v. GRONEMAN

This action stems from a weapon discharge on May 15, 2004, and the subsequent detention and search of plaintiff Charlie Green by members of the Riverhead Town Police Department. Green alleged constitutional violations due to warrantless searches of his person and barber shop, and an arrest without probable cause, additionally asserting a Monell claim against the Town of Riverhead for inadequate police training. Following a jury trial in January 2009, the jury found in favor of the defendants, concluding that probable cause existed for the arrest and the searches were reasonable. The plaintiff moved for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, both of which the Court denied, affirming the jury's verdict.

Constitutional RightsUnlawful SearchUnlawful ArrestProbable CauseMonell ClaimMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductFailure to TrainJury VerdictFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 245 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