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

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. 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

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

United States v. Arzberger

The government moved to modify Jason Arzberger's bail conditions, seeking to add restrictions mandated by the Adam Walsh Amendments, including a curfew, electronic monitoring, a prohibition on witness contact, and a ban on firearm possession. Arzberger challenged these amendments as unconstitutional, arguing violations of Fifth Amendment due process, Eighth Amendment excessive bail, and the separation of powers doctrine. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied the government's motion, ruling that the automatic imposition of a curfew with electronic monitoring, firearm prohibition, and witness contact ban without individualized assessment violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court also indicated that the Excessive Bail Clause might be violated as applied to Arzberger, pending further hearing. The separation of powers argument was rejected. The denial was without prejudice, allowing the government to present an individualized justification for the conditions.

Bail ConditionsAdam Walsh AmendmentsChild PornographyDue ProcessFifth AmendmentEighth AmendmentExcessive Bail ClauseSeparation of PowersSecond AmendmentFirst Amendment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

D'Elia v. City of New York

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. McClenning

Israel Rodriguez, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, sued corrections officer Daniel McClenning under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rodriguez claimed McClenning sexually assaulted him during a pat-frisk and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. McClenning moved for summary judgment, arguing the sexual assault claim lacked constitutional merit or was protected by qualified immunity, and that the retaliation claim lacked evidence of improper motive. The court denied McClenning's motion, concluding that sexual assault of an inmate by a prison officer violates contemporary Eighth Amendment standards and that qualified immunity does not apply to such conduct. Additionally, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive regarding the misbehavior report to deny summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSexual AssaultQualified ImmunityFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRetaliationCorrectional FacilitySummary Judgment
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parris v. New York State Department Correctional Services

Antoine Parris, a pro se plaintiff, sued Commissioner Brian Fischer, Superintendent William Lee, and Deputy Superintendent Edward Burnett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for failure to protect him from a stabbing by another inmate and state law negligence claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court denied the motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds due to ambiguity in the complaint. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims, finding that Parris failed to allege sufficient facts to establish deliberate indifference by the defendants or their personal involvement in an Eighth Amendment violation. The plaintiff's state law claims were also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as New York Corrections Law § 24 provides immunity for DOCCS employees.

Prisoner RightsEighth Amendment ViolationDeliberate IndifferenceFailure to ProtectPrison Litigation Reform ActAdministrative ExhaustionSupervisory LiabilitySection 1983Motion to DismissPro Se Litigation
References
39
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
Aug 31, 1999

Hassan v. Schweizer

Plaintiff, a 15-year-old, suffered severe hand injuries in 1985 while working at a sawmill owned by defendant Henry Schweizer. Plaintiff initiated a negligence lawsuit in 1990, alleging he was an employee and defendant failed to provide workers' compensation. Defendant denied this, asserting plaintiff was a trespasser, but later sought to amend his answer to claim workers' compensation as an exclusive remedy, an argument he knew about for years but intentionally suppressed. Plaintiff cross-moved to amend his complaint to include Labor Law § 133 violations and for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied all motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of both parties' motions, citing defendant's undue delay and prejudice, and finding plaintiff's complaint amendment unnecessary as Labor Law violations could be supported via the bill of particulars. It also denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion, stating proximate cause remained a factual issue.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ClaimAmended PleadingsCross AppealsUndue DelayPrejudiceLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionProximate Cause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2003

Brancato v. City of New York

Plaintiff Vincent Brancato sued the City of New York and several of its departments and officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Brancato claimed that the City failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before placing a lien on his Staten Island property for health code violations and associated cleanup costs. The court found that the initial notice of violation was sufficient for both the original and subsequent similar violations, citing the City's strong public health interest in summarily abating nuisances. Furthermore, the court noted that Brancato had post-deprivation remedies available through an Article 78 Proceeding. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the City's procedures for addressing health code violations provided constitutionally sufficient due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Property LienHealth Code ViolationPublic Nuisance AbatementCity of New YorkNotice RequirementPre-deprivation HearingPost-deprivation Remedy
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 10,879 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