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

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quadir v. New York State Department of Labor

Plaintiff Mohammed Quadir sued the New York State Department of Labor, alleging disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodations, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State and City Human Rights Laws (NYSHRL, NYCHRL). The Department moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. However, it allowed the claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, adverse employment action due to disability, and retaliation to proceed, construing them under the Rehabilitation Act. The court also denied Quadir's application for pro bono counsel without prejudice, stating it was too early to determine the merits of the case.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPro Se Litigant
References
55
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. 136 F.Supp.3d 385
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 2016

Kelly v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff Sharon Kelly, a registered nurse, initiated this action against her former employers, the New York State Office of Mental Health and the Brooklyn Children’s Center, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Kelly claimed she was discriminated against due to her anxiety, depression, and hypertension, citing instances like an alleged assault, failure to investigate, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The court, presided over by Judge Matsumoto, determined that Kelly failed to plausibly allege she had a disability within the meaning of the Act or that she experienced adverse employment actions or a hostile work environment. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and all of Kelly's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActEmployment RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeMotion to DismissFederal Court DecisionMental Health ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentPro Se Litigation
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc.

This action involves a plaintiff who sued Buffalo State College Foundation, d/b/a Families United, for employment discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant withdrew a job offer because of her association with her disabled child, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of discriminatory intent, partially relying on the "same hirer, same firer" inference. However, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant's stated reason for withdrawing the offer was a pretext for discrimination. The court emphasized the early stage of the employment relationship and the unique circumstances of association discrimination claims under the ADA.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Association DiscriminationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext for DiscriminationDisabled ChildFamily ResponsibilitiesHiring PracticesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polan v. STATE INS. DEPT.

Charlene Polan, suffering from a chronic psychiatric disability, challenged her insurer's 24-month limitation on long-term disability benefits for mental disorders, while physical disabilities were covered until age 65. She argued this violated Insurance Law § 4224 (b) (2), which prohibits insurers from limiting coverage solely due to disability without actuarial justification. After the New York State Insurance Department rejected her complaint, Polan initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division denied her petition, concluding that § 4224 (b) (2) does not mandate equal benefits for mental and physical disabilities. The Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the statute to prohibit discrimination against an individual based on their disability, not to require parity of benefits across different types of disabilities for all insureds.

DiscriminationDisability InsuranceMental DisabilityPhysical DisabilityInsurance LawStatutory InterpretationAntidiscrimination StatutesEmployee BenefitsLong-term DisabilityActuarial Principles
References
13
Case No. No. 36
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2017

Betty L. Kimmel v. State of New York

This case addresses whether the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows attorneys' fees and costs for a prevailing plaintiff in a Human Rights Law action alleging sex discrimination against a state agency. The plaintiff, Betty L. Kimmel, a former New York State Trooper, sued the State of New York and the New York State Division of State Police for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation she experienced during her employment. After enduring years of litigation, including

Equal Access to Justice ActAttorneys' FeesSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights LawState AgencyJudicial ReviewRemedial StatuteStatutory InterpretationCivil Litigation
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 16,158 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