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
Jan 09, 1992

Loper v. New York City Police Department

Plaintiffs Jennifer Loper and William Kaye, representing a class, sought summary judgment against the New York City Police Department and Commissioner Lee Brown, aiming to declare New York State Penal Law § 240.35(1), which criminalizes loitering for begging, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued their provided arrest reports, detailing over 1,200 arrests under the statute, demonstrated ongoing constitutional violations. However, the defendants contended these reports were subject to multiple interpretations, with many charges being erroneously listed or pertaining to other offenses like prostitution or drug activity, thereby presenting a genuine issue of material fact regarding their enforcement scheme. The court further dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the mere enactment of an unconstitutional statute warrants relief without a proven, credible threat of enforcement. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied, with leave for the plaintiffs to renew it following additional discovery.

Constitutional LawSummary JudgmentLoitering StatutePenal LawFirst AmendmentBeggingClass ActionStatutory ChallengePolice EnforcementJudicial Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pallas v. New York State Police

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a decision awarding workers' compensation benefits due to the death of a New York State Police sergeant. The sergeant died in an automobile collision after leaving a restaurant, having previously attended Magistrate's Court for work. Appellants argued that the sergeant abandoned his employment during the two-hour stop at the restaurant. However, a city police report indicated the sergeant's condition was "normal" and the truck driver was at fault. The court found no evidence of intoxication or personal pursuits adding to travel risks, and determined that any deviation from employment was temporary and ended when the homeward journey resumed. The decision awarding benefits was affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationEmployment DeviationCourse of EmploymentAccident During TravelPolice Officer DeathWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewFatal AccidentInsurance ClaimWorkmen's Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. 90 Civ. 7546 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1992

Loper v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Loper and William Kaye, on behalf of themselves and a class, moved for summary judgment against the New York City Police Department and its Commissioner. They sought a declaration that New York State Penal Law § 240.35(1), pertaining to loitering for begging, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs submitted arrest reports to demonstrate ongoing unconstitutional injuries. Defendants countered that the statute was frequently misapplied, with many arrests mistakenly categorized under the loitering statute but actually involving other offenses like prostitution or drug activity. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion, citing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendants' enforcement scheme, making summary judgment inappropriate. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the mere enactment of an unconstitutional statute warrants relief, emphasizing the necessity of a credible threat of enforcement.

Summary JudgmentFirst AmendmentLoitering StatuteBegging RightsConstitutional ChallengeNew York Penal LawPolice EnforcementClass ActionJudicial ReviewArrest Reports
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman v. New York City Police Department

The petitioner's employment was terminated by the New York City Police Department due to unexcused absence, intoxication, and possession of cocaine. Despite promising to report to duty, the petitioner never appeared. Police, entering her apartment under emergency circumstances, found her unconscious and intoxicated, with cocaine residue visible. Subsequent urine tests were positive for cocaine. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petitioner's request, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding, citing substantial evidence to support the termination.

employment terminationpolice misconductCPLR Article 78emergency doctrinewarrantless entrydrug possessionpublic employee disciplinesubstantial evidenceadministrative law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Jimerson v. New York City Police Department

Claimant, a senior administrative aide, applied for workers' compensation benefits due to hand, neck, and back injuries from repetitive movements while employed by the New York City Police Department. A work-related injury was established, and she received benefits for intermittent lost time. Claimant ceased working in March 2005, asserting her injuries prevented her from performing duties. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined she voluntarily removed herself from the labor market, denying further benefits, though the Board remitted for further development on intermittent lost time awards. The appellate court reversed the Board's determination regarding voluntary withdrawal, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. Medical reports from treating physicians, Marc Levinson and Dwiref Mehta, indicated her disability contributed to her decision to stop working. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketRepetitive Movement InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeNeck and Back InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityTreating Physician ReportMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard Decision Reversed
References
5
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01595 [225 AD3d 1083]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Losquadro v. Nassau County Police Dept.

Claimant Dean V. Losquadro, a police officer, sustained injuries in February 2021, establishing a workers' compensation claim. He retired in December 2021 and subsequently argued his retirement was involuntary due to these injuries. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found an involuntary retirement, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding there was insufficient credible evidence to support an involuntary withdrawal from the labor market related to the disability from the February 2021 accident. The Board cited previous workers' compensation claims, the lack of a clear connection between the current disability and prior permanent partial disabilities in medical reports, and the presence of degenerative conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish an involuntary retirement.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketInvoluntary RetirementDisability BenefitsMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewPolice Officer InjuryPermanent Partial Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2017

Morris v. New York State Police

Plaintiffs Shannon Morris, Melissa Lee, and Kevin Rafferty, forensic scientists at the New York State Police Crime Lab, initiated a civil rights action against the State Police and seven individual administrators. They alleged retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights by advocating for the TrueAllele DNA analysis method and reporting alleged professional misconduct by Director Pizziketti. Additionally, they claimed gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and defamation. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing claims against the State Police based on sovereign immunity and most discrimination claims, but allowing First Amendment retaliation and certain Title VII retaliation claims, as well as common law defamation claims against specific individual defendants to proceed to discovery.

First Amendment Retaliation42 U.S.C. § 1983Title VII Civil Rights ActGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentDefamationLibelSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentDNA Analysis
References
79
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2012

Claim of Cook v. East Greenbush Police Department

The claimant, a patrol officer for the East Greenbush Police Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following a traumatic incident in January 2009 involving an armed suspect. His claim was denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, who found that the events giving rise to his injury were part of his job responsibilities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for a mental injury from work-related stress to be compensable, the stress must exceed that normally encountered in the work environment. The court concluded that while the specific encounter was "extraordinary," the possibility of needing deadly force is an inherent part of a police officer's regular duties, regardless of department size. Therefore, the Board's decision to deny benefits was upheld.

Posttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental InjuryWork-Related StressPolice OfficerAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentNormal Work EnvironmentDeadly Force
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,589 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