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

Ostensen v. Suffolk County

Nancy Ostensen initiated an action against Suffolk County, its Police Department, Officer Thomas Gallagher, and private individuals Patricia Capucci and Rosemary Kneeht, asserting constitutional violations under Section 1983 and various New York state law claims. The Plaintiff alleged unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations stemming from an incident where the private defendants entered a residence where Ostensen lived, with Officer Gallagher's alleged non-intervention. The County Defendants sought summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, determining there was no evidence of conspiracy between the state and private actors, that Ostensen lacked a possessory interest in the property for an unreasonable seizure claim, and that Officer Gallagher was shielded by qualified immunity as his actions were objectively reasonable. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentState ActionConspiracyMunicipal Liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1993

Suffolk County Democratic Committee v. Gaffney

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed an order by the Suffolk County Supreme Court, dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Suffolk County Democratic Committee and Dominick J. Baranello. The plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of Local Laws, 1993, No. 12, which reapportioned the Suffolk County Legislature. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of claims based on lack of standing for the Committee and Baranello, as well as causes of action under the Municipal Home Rule Law, Voting Rights Act, and Civil Rights Act, citing a lack of applicability or factual support. Furthermore, the denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim, despite the reapportionment plan's population deviation being constitutionally suspect.

ReapportionmentStanding DoctrineLocal Government LawConstitutional ChallengeVoting Rights LitigationCivil Rights LitigationEqual Protection ClausePreliminary Injunction DenialSuffolk County LegislatureMunicipal Home Rule
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Richard Cox sued Suffolk County, its Police Department, and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alongside state law claims. Cox's claims arose from his arrest and prosecution for sodomy, where he contended he was an unwilling participant. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on Cox's state claims due to notice of claim and statute of limitations issues. For the Section 1983 claims, summary judgment was granted to the County and Police Department, and to the officers on false arrest and excessive force, but denied to the officers on malicious prosecution, finding their continued prosecution objectively unreasonable after exculpatory evidence emerged.

Section 1983Qualified ImmunityMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional RightsFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
45
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07163 [144 AD3d 640]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Meehan v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Michelle Meehan, sustained personal injuries in a vehicular accident with Roslyn Birnbaum, who was performing work for the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Child Protection Services. Meehan initiated a consolidated action, asserting that the county defendants were vicariously liable for Birnbaum's alleged negligence. The county defendants sought summary judgment, contending that Birnbaum was an independent contractor rather than an employee, thus negating vicarious liability. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment in favor of the county defendants, dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the county defendants had established Birnbaum's status as an independent contractor and the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact regarding an employer-employee relationship.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl TestPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Booney v. Dilworth

The petitioner, a probationary evidence technician trainee with the Suffolk County Police Department, was terminated from her employment based on an interim evaluation citing unsatisfactory work performance. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially directed her reinstatement with back pay. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, confirming the Police Commissioner's determination and dismissing the proceeding. The court affirmed that probationary employees can be dismissed without specific reasons or a hearing, provided the termination is not arbitrary or capricious and made in good faith, which was supported by evidence of the petitioner's poor performance.

Probationary EmploymentTermination of EmploymentPolice DepartmentSuffolk CountyCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousGood Faith TerminationUnsatisfactory PerformanceDue Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orange v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiffs, former and current Suffolk County Civil Service employees, sued Suffolk County, its County Executive, and legislators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged politically motivated adverse employment actions. Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims based on immunity and state claims on statute of limitations. The court granted in part and denied in part, holding individual defendants absolutely immune for legislative acts (voting for a resolution abolishing positions and the executive signing it). Claims against officials in their official capacity were dismissed as redundant to the County. The court retained jurisdiction over the state law claim and dismissed the conspiracy claim with leave to amend, denying attorney's fees to defendants.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. 1983First AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPolitical Affiliation DiscriminationLegislative ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityMotion to DismissSuffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services
References
35
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01947 [226 AD3d 845]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Verderosa v. County of Suffolk

The case "Verderosa v County of Suffolk" involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants County of Suffolk and Architectural Entrance Systems, Inc. (AES) in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, Linda Verderosa, sought damages after Salvatore Verderosa (decedent) was injured when his hand became trapped in a courthouse door. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against AES, finding no duty owed by AES to the decedent. However, the court reversed the dismissal against the County of Suffolk, determining that the County failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice regarding a dangerous condition (e.g., door speed, jagged handle) prior to the accident.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationTort LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeDoor AccidentSuffolk County
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Plaintiff Dr. Martin Roginsky filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the County of Suffolk, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Executive Law. Roginsky, a physician, was constructively discharged from his Staff Physician role at the Suffolk County Jail. He claims the termination was due to his age, citing remarks made by Dr. Gerazi, the Medical Director of the Jail, and that the County used a prescription-writing issue as a pretext. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was not Roginsky's employer and that age was not the 'but for' cause of his discharge. The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, finding that Roginsky had plausibly alleged an employment relationship with the County and satisfied the 'but for' causation standard for his ADEA claim. Consequently, the Court also decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ILC Data Device Corp. v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiffs, a group of corporations defined as employers in Suffolk County, initiated an action to invalidate Local Law No. 21, which aimed to protect employees using video display terminals (VDTs) by mandating vision examinations, workstation standards, and work breaks. The County of Suffolk defended the local law. The court, presided over by John Copertino, J., determined that the Suffolk County Legislature overstepped its authority in enacting Local Law No. 21. The ruling cited Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (f), which prohibits local laws that 'apply to or affect' the Labor Law or Workers’ Compensation Law. The court concluded that the VDT law's comprehensive approach to workplace conditions fell squarely within the purview of state labor laws, thus rendering the local enactment unauthorized and invalid.

Local Law No. 21VDT LawMunicipal Home Rule LawLabor Law PreemptionWorkers' Compensation Law ConflictLocal Government AuthorityLegislative Power RestrictionWorkplace Safety RegulationsVideo Display TerminalsSuffolk County Legislature
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 7,346 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