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

People v. Salamon

Defendant Yehuda Salamon moved to dismiss charges and declare Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional, arguing its vagueness regarding prohibited conduct, mens rea, and standard of proof. The People opposed, contending 'lack of due care' functions as a culpable mental state and the statute sufficiently defines prohibited conduct. The court analyzed the constitutionality of the statute, specifically the 'due care' standard, in the context of criminal liability and the requirement for mens rea. The court found that the civil tort liability standard of negligence ('due care') is inconsistent with criminal conduct's awareness requirement and creates unconstitutional vagueness. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion, finding Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional on its face and dismissing the related charges, while other charges remained.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessCriminal NegligenceMens ReaStrict LiabilityAdministrative CodeVehicle and Traffic LawMotion to DismissPedestrian Safety
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz

Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 5 (2011) of the Town of New Paltz, aimed at protecting wetlands and watercourses, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and unconstitutional vagueness. The Supreme Court initially annulled the local law and negative declaration. On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board had fulfilled its SEQRA obligations by taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns and issuing a reasoned negative declaration. The court also found the 2011 law not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice to property owners. Additionally, the court rejected claims regarding unconstitutional conservation fees, preemption by state laws, and minor procedural irregularities, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the constitutionality of Local Law No. 5 (2011).

Environmental LawSEQRALocal Government LawWetlands ProtectionDeclaratory Judgment ActionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstitutional ChallengeVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingsLand Use Regulation
References
33
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. ADJ6939588; ADJ8656131
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

FRANCISCO OROZCO vs. GLOBAL PLASTIC; AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Francisco Orozco's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order taking his case off calendar. Orozco argued the order was based on non-compliance with Labor Code section 4061(i), which he contended was unconstitutional and violated due process. The Board found removal was an extraordinary remedy not warranted here as Orozco failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the Board lacks the authority to declare statutes unconstitutional.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 4061(i)unconstitutionaldue processsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationmedical evaluationagreed medical evaluatorqualified medical evaluator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between City of Amsterdam

Petitioner appealed an order denying its application to stay arbitration with respondent concerning a sick leave dispute. The dispute arose after petitioner sought reimbursement for sick leave paid to an employee, Richard Roginski, who was injured during outside employment. Petitioner argued that arbitration violated public policy, was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law, and that sick leave constituted an unconstitutional gift. The court affirmed the order, finding no significant public policy violation, clarifying that Workers' Compensation from an outside employer did not prevent sick leave use with the primary employer, and that sick leave provisions authorized by statute were not unconstitutional gifts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSick Leave BenefitsPublic EmploymentWorkers' CompensationOutside EmploymentConstitutional ChallengeMunicipal LawGrievance ProcedureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fullilove v. Carey

Governor Carey issued Executive Order No. 45, mandating affirmative action programs for state contractors. A coalition of labor organizations and construction industry associations challenged this order, arguing it exceeded the Governor's executive authority and encroached upon the legislative branch's power. The Supreme Court initially ruled Executive Order No. 45 unconstitutional. Governor Carey subsequently appealed this determination. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that Executive Order No. 45 improperly extended and expanded statutory requirements, thereby constituting an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the Governor and rendering the order unenforceable.

Executive OrderAffirmative ActionConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersExecutive AuthorityLegislative PowerLabor Law ComplianceDiscrimination in EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wildman

This case addresses the constitutionality of Administrative Code § 10-118 (b) of the City of New York, which prohibits transporting building materials without proof of ownership. Defendant challenged the statute, arguing the complaint was facially insufficient and that the statute violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption and being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Judge Michael Gerstein denied all of defendant's motions. The court found the complaint facially sufficient and determined that the statute does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and clear standards for enforcement, rationally deterring theft and vandalism.

ConstitutionalityDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineIrrebuttable PresumptionAdministrative CodeStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawFacial InsufficiencyProof of Ownership
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesis of Mount Vernon, N.Y., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

This case concerns a hybrid proceeding where the petitioner, Genesis project, challenged the denial of building and area variances by the Mt. Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals for a proposed congregate housing facility for the elderly. The petitioner also sought a declaratory judgment that the City of Mt. Vernon Zoning Ordinance's definitions of 'boarding house' and 'family' were unconstitutional. The court found both definitions to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the State Due Process Clause. Consequently, the court granted declaratory relief, allowing the petitioner to construct the facility as a two-family house and also granted the area variances, remanding to the Zoning Board for setting reasonable conditions. A claim for damages and attorney's fees was severed for a separate action.

Zoning OrdinanceDue ProcessConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentUse VarianceArea VarianceBoarding HouseFamily DefinitionElderly HousingNot-for-Profit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Children's Village v. Holbrook

A not-for-profit child care agency applied to the Town Board of Clarkstown for a special permit to operate a group home for adolescent boys in an R-22 residential zoning district. The Town Board denied the application, prompting the agency to initiate a CPLR article 78 proceeding, later converted to a declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court initially held the proposed group home was family-like and didn't require a special permit. On appeal, the court found that the Town Zoning Ordinance's definition of 'family' was facially unconstitutional under the State Due Process Clause because it unequally restricted the size of functionally equivalent families compared to traditional ones. The judgment was modified to declare the ordinance's definition of 'family' unconstitutional and was affirmed as modified.

Zoning LawDue Process ClauseConstitutional LawGroup HomesSpecial Use PermitsFamily DefinitionMunicipal OrdinanceAppellate CourtRockland CountyNew York State Constitution
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Ass'n v. New York

This Memorandum, Decision and Order addresses a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by Plaintiffs seeking to declare Chapter 13 of the Laws of 2003, which amended New York State's Clean Indoor Air Act, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued the law was preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and was impermissibly vague concerning the distinction between bars and food service establishments, as well as its waiver provision. Presiding Judge Kahn found that federal regulations did not preempt state tobacco smoke regulations and that the challenged provisions were not unconstitutionally vague. Consequently, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The ruling emphasized that issues of enforcement discretion by local health departments do not render the statute itself constitutionally infirm.

Preliminary InjunctionConstitutional LawPreemption DoctrineVagueness ChallengeClean Indoor Air ActSmoking RegulationsOccupational Safety and Health ActEnvironmental Tobacco SmokeState Law ChallengeFederal Preemption
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 224 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