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

Southerland v. Woo

This case involves a father and his now-grown children suing Timothy Woo, a former caseworker for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs alleged Woo made false statements or omitted information to obtain a Family Court order for entry into their home (Fourth Amendment), and then improperly removed the children without court approval (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments). After multiple appeals and a mistrial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on both claims. The court granted Woo qualified immunity for the Entry Order claim, finding his misstatements immaterial to probable cause. However, the court denied qualified immunity for the children's removal, concluding that no reasonable caseworker would have believed emergency circumstances warranted immediate seizure without a court order, especially given ACS policies and available alternatives. The court also rejected Woo's arguments for judicial estoppel and the application of *Cameron v. Fogarty*.

Civil RightsFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentQualified ImmunityChild RemovalDue ProcessFamily Court ActJudicial EstoppelExigent CircumstancesChild Neglect
References
38
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
Aug 29, 2016

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

Plaintiffs, Louis DeCosmo, as administrator of M.D.'s estate and father of J.D., sued various state and county defendants, along with individuals, alleging constitutional rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death, and survival action under state law. The claims stemmed from the alleged failure of child protective services to intervene effectively, leading to M.D.'s death and J.D.'s injuries while in their mother's custody and her abusive partner's care. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state defendants and failure to state a claim for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory liability, and Monell liability for county defendants. The Court granted the State Defendants' motion based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing claims against New York State and OCFS. Claims against Dutchess DCFS and Ulster DSS were dismissed as they lack the capacity to be sued. The Court further dismissed Fourth Amendment claims due to a lack of alleged affirmative seizure by Dutchess Defendants and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, finding no state-created danger or special relationship exception applied as M.D. and J.D. were not in state custody. Supervisory and Monell liability claims against county defendants also failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient factual allegations of unconstitutional policies or customs. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsChild AbuseGovernmental ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Due ProcessState-Created DangerSpecial RelationshipMonell DoctrineSupervisory Liability
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balaber-Strauss v. Town/Village of Harrison

Plaintiffs, including Loronda and Vincent Murphy and a bankruptcy trustee, brought a § 1983 action against the Town/Village of Harrison and its officials, alleging First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alongside a state defamation claim. They asserted that defendants retaliated against them and chilled their First Amendment rights through defamatory public comments regarding a tax foreclosure of the Murphys' home. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that defamation claims are insufficient for a § 1983 action and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an actual chilling effect on their speech. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed as inapplicable to state actors, and no Fourteenth Amendment violation was found. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

First AmendmentSection 1983DefamationMotion to DismissRetaliation ClaimChilling EffectSupplemental JurisdictionTax ForeclosureBankruptcy CodeDue Process
References
24
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cnty.

The case centered on Human Rights Defense Center's (HRDC) challenge against Baxter County's postcard-only mail policy at the Baxter County Jail, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. HRDC contended the policy unlawfully restricted its ability to send publications to prisoners and that it lacked proper notice for rejected mail. The Court denied the County's motion for reconsideration and dismissed HRDC's First Amendment claim, upholding the policy as rationally related to legitimate penological interests in security, cost-savings, and efficiency. However, a technical due process violation was found for certain August 5, 2016 mailings due to insufficient reasons for rejection, leading to a $4.00 nominal damages award for HRDC. All other Fourteenth Amendment claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Prison mail policyFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPrisoner rightsConstitutional lawPenological interestsContraband reductionJail efficiencyNominal damages
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cherry v. Jorling

Plaintiff Patrick L. Cherry filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by various defendants, including state officials and 'Doe' defendants. Cherry claimed his civil rights were violated through criminal proceedings and administrative actions to terminate him from employment, stemming from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure of DEC property from his home. Magistrate Judge Foschio recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege a tangible injury under the Fourteenth Amendment's 'stigma plus' test, and failed to state valid Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims. District Judge Arcara adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the case in its entirety.

Civil RightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessMotion to DismissReport and RecommendationSearch and SeizureQualified Immunity
References
53
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

Wallace v. Suffolk County Police Department

Plaintiff Thomas C. Wallace initiated a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Department, John Gallagher, Phillip Robilotto, and James Abbott, alleging retaliation for his protected speech concerning alleged shortcomings and corruption within the SCPD. Plaintiff contended that he was forcibly retired and subjected to other harassing acts in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed, and also denied the motion to dismiss the Monell claims against the municipal defendants. However, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. The individual defendants' claim of qualified immunity and Defendant Abbott's argument that claims against him were untimely were also denied.

42 U.S.C. Section 1983First Amendment RightsRetaliationFreedom of SpeechPublic Employee SpeechAdverse Employment ActionMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimQualified ImmunitySuffolk County Police Department
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tylena M. Ex Rel. Debra M. v. Heartshare Children's Services

Tylena M. and Latisha M., foster children represented by their adoptive mother Debra M., sued Heartshare Children’s Services, the City of New York, and several employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged failure to protect them from abuse while in foster care, including claims of improper supervision, failure to train employees, and acquiescence in excessive force, violating their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as state law claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims for failure to supervise and excessive force against the City and its employees in their official capacity, and on the state law tort claim against the City. Summary judgment was granted for claims against individual defendants in their personal capacity due to immunity or lack of personal involvement, for Fifth Amendment claims, and for the failure-to-train and social worker malpractice claims. Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 11 sanctions was also denied.

Foster Care AbuseChild WelfareDeliberate IndifferenceSection 1983Summary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityQualified ImmunityNegligent SupervisionExcessive ForceState Law Claims
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 3,733 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