New York Law Watch
Civil Rights and Constitutional Law
Constitutional challenges and civil rights claims are grouped here, including Law Watch decisions on government restrictions, equal protection and access to courts.
Claims arising from allegedly defamatory speech and anti-SLAPP protections are filed here, including decisions about actionable statements and litigation over public participation.
For Civil Rights and Constitutional Law, Law Watch lists 31 indexable decisions dated January 15, 2026 to November 5, 2026 across 13 decision weeks.
36 decision records: 31 meet the substance floor; 5 records are held from search listings.
The records below come from 7 courts and include both primary and secondary area classifications.
This collection also includes Defamation and Anti-SLAPP.
Browse by year
Recent decisions
- Rosenthal v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06504
The court held that a whistleblower retaliation claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b may be based on a government’s passive inaction rather than affirmative misconduct, reversing the dismissal of that claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim as untimely and the due process claim due to the availability of adequate alternative remedies.
- Sinagra v Costello2026 NY Slip Op 06500
The court affirmed the dismissal of the defamation complaint, determining that the challenged statements by town officials were protected expressions of opinion rather than actionable assertions of fact. The court found that the remarks were not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and did not imply undisclosed facts detrimental to the plaintiff.
- People v County of Nassau2026 NY Slip Op 06472
The local law prohibiting the use of county park property for sporting events that allow biological males to compete on teams designated for females is invalid as preempted by the New York State Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law. The court held that the law constitutes discrimination based on gender identity or expression, which is expressly prohibited by state law.
- Long Is. Roller Rebels v County of Nassau2026 NY Slip Op 06427
The local law prohibiting the use of county park property for sporting events that allow biological males to compete in women’s categories is invalid because it is preempted by the New York State Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law § 40-c. The court held that the law discriminates based on gender identity or expression, which is expressly prohibited for places of public accommodation.
- Irish v Tropical Emerald, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06423
The plaintiff is not collaterally estopped from asserting claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL based on a prior federal court’s dismissal of ADA claims because the state laws require independent analysis under different legal thresholds. The federal court’s determination that barrier removal was not ‘readily achievable’ under the ADA does not preclude the plaintiff from arguing that such removal would not cause ‘undue hardship’ under the NYCHRL or NYSHRL.
- JRT Realty Group, Inc. v Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06400
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, holding that the defamation and tortious interference claims were barred by New York’s anti-SLAPP statute because the underlying email addressed a public interest issue. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the contract and failed to meet the heightened substantial-basis standard required for anti-SLAPP motions.
- Maisto v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 06365
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination that the State’s remedial response, centered on the full implementation of the Foundation Aid formula, was rational. The court held that while plaintiffs identified legitimate concerns regarding the formula’s methodology, they failed to demonstrate that the State’s chosen remedy was patently irrational or constitutionally infirm.
- Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC v New York State Cannabis Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 06364
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the state’s use of funds to finance cannabis dispensaries does not conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act. The court determined that the state law does not create a physical impossibility of compliance with federal law nor obstruct Congress’s objectives, as it does not require individuals to engage in federally prohibited conduct.