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

Quill v. Koppell

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York Penal Law §§ 125.15(3) and 120.30, which criminalize aiding suicide. Physician plaintiffs argue these laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to physicians assisting mentally competent, terminally ill adults seeking to avoid severe suffering. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of these statutes. Defendants moved for dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no fundamental liberty interest in physician-assisted suicide under the Due Process Clause and no violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the state has legitimate interests in preserving life and can distinguish between refusing medical treatment and actively assisting suicide.

Physician-assisted suicideDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentTerminal illnessRight to diePreliminary injunctionSummary judgmentCriminal statutesNew York Penal Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2004

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty v. New York

This action was initiated by parents of homeless children in Suffolk County, New York, to enforce the McKinney-Vento Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs allege a systematic failure by the defendants to ensure homeless children's access to education, particularly regarding enrollment and transportation. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, affirming that the McKinney-Vento Act creates individually enforceable rights and that the Equal Protection Clause claim warrants heightened scrutiny. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, concluding that the class fulfilled all requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). A bench trial is scheduled to begin on October 27, 2004.

McKinney-Vento ActEqual Protection ClauseHomeless ChildrenEducation RightsClass ActionClass CertificationMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Suffolk County
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1995

Schaeffer v. City of New York

Plaintiff Allen Schaeffer, a former HRA employee, sued the City of New York and HRA employees for alleged retaliation after filing a complaint with the Department of Investigations (DOI) concerning HRA's disciplinary procedures. His claims included violations of First Amendment rights (protected speech) and the Equal Protection Clause (whistleblower policy), as well as a state claim for unpaid wages. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding Schaeffer's speech not constitutionally protected as it pertained to internal office affairs, and lacking causation for alleged retaliation. The Equal Protection claim also failed as whistleblowers are not a protected class. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim.

First Amendment RightsEqual Protection ClauseWhistleblower PolicyRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPublic Employee SpeechCausal ConnectionAdverse Employment ActionGovernment DiscretionInternal Affairs Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters Within New York v. New York

This case involves eleven plaintiff labor organizations challenging Section 375 of Chapter 190 of the Laws of New York of 1990, which implemented a lag payroll system for nonjudicial employees of the Unified Court System. The plaintiffs argued that this law unconstitutionally impaired their collective bargaining agreements and violated the Contract Clause, Equal Protection, and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The court found no contractual impairment, citing a statutory provision requiring legislative action for compensation agreements. It concluded that the lag payroll was a reasonable and necessary measure to address the state's fiscal crisis, and that the statute satisfied the rational basis test for equal protection and due process claims. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Lag Payroll SystemContract ImpairmentEqual ProtectionDue ProcessCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentPreliminary InjunctionFiscal PolicyState EmployeesJudicial System
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority

Plaintiffs (American Atheists, Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, and Jane Everhart) sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and state constitutions, challenging the display of a steel cross artifact in the National September 11 Museum. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Foundation's actions were attributable to the state. However, applying the Lemon test, the court determined that displaying the cross had a secular purpose, did not endorse religion, and did not create excessive entanglement. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and state law claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that the state law claims failed for various reasons, including non-applicability to the bi-state agency or failure to comply with notice requirements. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSummary JudgmentState ActionReligious SymbolSeptember 11 MemorialMuseum ExhibitGovernment FundingConstitutional Law
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heap v. County of Schenectady

Plaintiff Kathleen Heap sued the County of Schenectady and Robert McEvoy, alleging sex discrimination regarding promotion and pay, in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York Executive Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Personnel Administrator position was policy-making and exempt from Title VII, and that Heap failed to establish prima facie cases for her claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the claims of pattern and practice discrimination, Title VII pay discrimination, and Equal Pay Act violations. However, the court denied summary judgment on the claims of discrimination in promotion, Equal Protection, and New York Executive Law, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial.

Gender DiscriminationFailure to PromoteEqual Pay ActTitle VIISection 1983Equal Protection ClauseNew York Executive LawSummary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Realbuto v. Howe

Lori Boyar Realbuto, a former New York State employee with a hearing impairment and chronic fatigue immunity deficiency syndrome, sued New York State and several officials, alleging discrimination based on her handicaps. She claimed violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the due process and equal protection clauses, after her noncompetitive "55-b" position was eliminated during a reduction-in-force, preventing her from "bumping" a more junior competitive class employee. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Realbuto failed to demonstrate discrimination "solely" on the basis of her handicap, as her inability to bump resulted from her classification as a noncompetitive employee who did not take a competitive examination, rather than her disability itself. The Court also dismissed her equal protection and due process claims, finding the civil service classification rational and no protected interest in the claimed benefits.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation Act of 1973Americans With Disabilities ActCivil Service LawNoncompetitive Class EmploymentBumping RightsSummary JudgmentEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseHandicapped Individuals Employment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Equality Specialities

Plaintiff Bonnie Hayes initiated an action against Equality Specialties, Inc., MNC Stribbons Inc., and MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 190-99, stemming from the termination of her employment by Equality. Her claims against MNC entities were predicated on a theory of successor liability for Equality's alleged wrongs. MNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hayes failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding successor liability. The Court evaluated Hayes's arguments for de facto merger, implied assumption of liabilities, and fraud, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to establish any of these exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. Consequently, the Court granted MNC's motion for summary judgment, ordering Hayes to pursue a default judgment against Equality or dismiss the action.

Successor LiabilitySummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitWage ClaimsDe Facto MergerAsset Sale AgreementCorporate Law
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,460 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