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
Feb 21, 2003

Gill v. Smith

The plaintiff filed a civil rights action against Defendant Gregory E. Smith, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and First/Eighth Amendment rights due to retaliation threats. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for the defendant on both claims. However, Chief Judge Scullin adopted the recommendation only in part, granting summary judgment for the defendant on the First Amendment retaliation claim, as the alleged threats did not deter the plaintiff. Crucially, the Chief Judge denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the Eighth Amendment ETS claim, finding material issues of fact concerning the level of ETS exposure and the defendant's deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's medical condition. The Chief Judge also denied the defendant's qualified immunity defense and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the Eighth Amendment claim to proceed.

Civil RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentEnvironmental Tobacco SmokeAsthmaPrison ConditionsFirst AmendmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentQualified Immunity
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Harris

Plaintiff Robert Jones, an incarcerated individual at Sing Sing, initiated this action alleging his cell was searched multiple times in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights and in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with various property deprivations. Defendants, including correctional officers Harris and Allen, and Superintendent Marshall, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim. The court granted dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims related to cell searches and alleged sexual harassment, as well as First Amendment retaliation claims concerning cell searches, property destruction, and false misconduct reports, citing insufficient factual allegations or failure to meet constitutional thresholds. However, the court denied dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the deprivation of three specific items of property against defendants Allen and Marshall, requesting further legal briefing on questions concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and access to post-deprivation procedures. Motions filed by the plaintiff for summary judgment and in limine were denied; the former as futile due to lack of exhaustion or constitutional violation, and the latter as premature.

Prisoner RightsFirst AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationCell SearchProperty DeprivationQualified ImmunityAdministrative Remedies
References
45
Case No. 11 Civ. 9102
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsey v. Butler

Plaintiff Anthony Lindsey, a pro se litigant, brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that NYPD officers violated his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights on December 16, 2008, by forcibly shaving his facial hair, which he maintains as part of his Muslim faith, during post-arrest questioning. He also claimed suffering injuries and denial of medical attention. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim (as it applies only after conviction), claims against the City of New York (based on a prior ruling), and claims against Commissioner Raymond Kelly (due to lack of personal involvement). However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim, finding sufficient allegations of a non-neutral, unwritten policy targeting Muslims for forced shaving for lineups, and the Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force, noting that the alleged force (rear-cuffing, being knocked to the ground causing a mild concussion) was potentially unreasonable and unjustified during a custodial interrogation where Lindsey offered no resistance. The qualified immunity defense for Detective Butler was also denied.

Civil Rights ViolationFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentExcessive ForceQualified ImmunityPolice MisconductReligious FreedomCustodial InterrogationMuslim FaithPolice Lineup
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flemming v. Wurzberger

Plaintiff Woodrow Flemming, an inmate, brought a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that medical professionals Bezalel Wurzberger, Timothy Kemp, and P.A. Louise Tichenor were deliberately indifferent to his serious psychiatric and mental health needs while he was confined at Upstate Correctional Facility in 2005, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted, denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court concluded that Flemming's claims primarily represented a disagreement over appropriate treatment rather than a constitutional violation of deliberate indifference, emphasizing that mere negligence or malpractice does not constitute an Eighth Amendment claim. Additional claims by the plaintiff under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were also dismissed for not being properly asserted or lacking evidentiary support.

Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMental Health TreatmentCorrectional Facility42 U.S.C. § 1983Psychiatric Medication
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baumann v. Walsh

Plaintiff John Baumann, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against several prison officials, including claims of inadequate medical care and unsafe working conditions. The Court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation. Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment were denied. The Court granted summary judgment for most defendants and dismissed all Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims. However, summary judgment was denied for Defendant McCollum concerning Eighth Amendment claims, as genuine issues of material fact exist regarding deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs and exposure to unsafe working conditions. The case will now proceed with Defendant McCollum as the sole remaining defendant.

Civil Rights ComplaintEighth Amendment ViolationDeliberate IndifferenceSerious Medical NeedsUnsafe Prison ConditionsSummary Judgment MotionMagistrate Judge ReportPrisoner LitigationFederal JurisdictionConstitutional Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. Ross

Arrello Barnes, a pro se mentally ill inmate, sued DOCCS Commissioner Fischer and other New York State Office of Mental Health employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (Eighth Amendment) and racial discrimination in medical care (Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied Barnes' motions for sanctions and default judgment, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants and all claims against Commissioner Fischer due to a lack of personal involvement. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Barnes' equal protection claim for racial discrimination, finding that he plausibly alleged disparate treatment based on race by the remaining defendants. The defendants' claim of qualified immunity was also denied at this stage.

Inmate RightsEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseDeliberate IndifferenceRacial DiscriminationMental Health CarePrison ConditionsPro Se LitigationRule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
References
30
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Lithuanian Workers' Literature Society

The Lithuanian Workers’ Literature Society appealed a Kings Special Term order denying its motion to amend its certificate of incorporation. The proposed amendment sought to broaden membership qualifications from adhering to the Socialist Party to not opposing "Marxian principles". The court scrutinized whether "Marxian principles" endorse the overthrow of government by force, which is criminal under state Penal Law. Citing Karl Marx's historical support for forceful revolutions (e.g., Paris Commune), the court concluded that these principles were broad enough to justify illegal propaganda. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed amendment would allow retention of members advocating "direct action" by force, contrary to the Socialist Party's recently amended platform promoting constitutional methods. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the amendment, refusing to sanction an organization whose principles could potentially endorse unlawful means.

Corporate AmendmentSocialismMarxian PrinciplesFreedom of AssociationPolitical PropagandaConstitutional LawPenal LawAppellate ReviewMembership Corporations LawDirect Action
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,545 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