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. 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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiffs, Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association and Buies, Inc. d/b/a Dodester's, challenged New York State's Chapter 13 of the Laws of 2003, which regulated smoking in public places. They sought to declare the law unconstitutional, citing preemption by the OSH Act and unconstitutional vagueness regarding the distinction between bars and food service establishments and waiver criteria. The Court dismissed claims against New York State, its Department of Law, and Department of Health due to sovereign immunity. It found that the OSH Act did not preempt Chapter 13 as no federal standard explicitly covered environmental tobacco smoke. The Court also rejected the vagueness arguments. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Clean Indoor Air ActSmoking BanConstitutional LawPreemptionVagueness DoctrineSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentPublic Health LawOccupational Safety and Health ActEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

33 Seminary LLC v. City of Binghamton

Plaintiffs 26 Seminary Avenue Project LLC and 33 Seminary LLC sued the City of Binghamton and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of due process and equal protection rights stemming from the denial of building permits and variances. Plaintiffs challenged Binghamton City Ordinance 009-009 as unconstitutionally vague regarding "change of use" and claimed selective enforcement. The Court determined the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and found no protected property interest for the due process claims. Furthermore, the equal protection claims failed due to a lack of similarly situated comparators and insufficient evidence of malicious intent. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseZoning OrdinanceBuilding PermitsArea VarianceSummary JudgmentVagueness ChallengeSubstantive Due ProcessProcedural Due Process
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Aboaf

This case involves multiple defendants charged with violating Penal Law § 240.35 (4) for being masked in a public place with others similarly disguised during a May Day demonstration in Union Square Park. The defendants, including Daniel S. Chard, Christopher Teret, Darren Kramer, and Dennis Burke, faced additional charges such as resisting arrest, possession of burglar's tools, and possession of a graffiti instrument. They filed a collective omnibus motion to dismiss the information, arguing that Penal Law § 240.35 (4) violates their First Amendment rights to free association and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court denied the defendants' claims, finding they did not establish a nexus between compelled disclosure and harassment, and held the statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, especially when construed to prohibit masks for no legitimate purpose. Consequently, the court denied both the motions to dismiss the information and to suppress the recovered tangible property.

First AmendmentFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechLoiteringAnti-mask LawVagueness ChallengeOverbreadth ChallengePenal Law § 240.35 (4)Public DemonstrationAnarchists
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Peterson

Richard Peterson was indicted on three counts: wire fraud, engaging in the business of insurance after a felony conviction, and money laundering. He moved to dismiss all counts for lack of venue and Count Two for vagueness. The court, presided over by District Judge Chin in the Southern District of New York, denied both motions. The court found that venue was proper due to significant New York contacts, including the use of local insurance brokerage companies and banks, and that the statute regarding engaging in the insurance business after a felony conviction was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Peterson's alleged actions as an insurance broker, clarifying that "willfully" does not require specific intent to violate the law.

Criminal LawWire FraudInsurance FraudMoney LaunderingVenueVagueness DoctrineFederal Criminal ProcedureDue ProcessInterstate CommerceFelony Conviction
References
28
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

Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie

This case addresses a legal challenge to "Operation Refusal," an initiative by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) aimed at increasing disciplinary actions against taxi drivers for service refusals. Plaintiffs, including individual taxi drivers and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, contended that two policies of Operation Refusal—summary license suspension and post-hearing suspension/revocation—violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding the summary suspension policy, ruling it unconstitutional for depriving drivers of their licenses without adequate prior or post-suspension hearings. However, the Court largely denied the challenge to the post-hearing suspension/revocation policy, finding the rule not unconstitutionally vague, but allowed discovery on potential bias among TLC Administrative Law Judges. A preliminary injunction was issued, ordering the return of summarily suspended licenses to drivers awaiting a merits determination.

Due ProcessTaxi RegulationLicense SuspensionLicense RevocationCivil Rights Litigation42 U.S.C. § 1983Administrative Law JudgeSummary Judgment MotionPreliminary InjunctionGovernment Overreach
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 318 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