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

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. 10 Civ. 0699
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. City of New York

This Opinion & Order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses the admissibility of 'decline to prosecute' (DP) forms in a class action against the City of New York. Plaintiffs sought to use these forms as evidence of the NYPD's alleged unconstitutional trespass stops and arrests in NYCHA buildings for class certification and trial. The City argued against their admission as hearsay and legal conclusions. The Court ruled the DP forms admissible, primarily under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)), and found arresting officers' statements admissible as party-opponent admissions. The decision emphasized the forms' probative value and the lack of alternative evidence, despite concerns about implied legal conclusions, given the unique context of a class action challenging systemic practices.

Admissibility of EvidenceHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsPolice PracticesTrespass ArrestsNYCHA BuildingsClass ActionFederal Rules of EvidenceProbable CauseLegal Conclusions
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. United States

Petitioners, including Steven Baker, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate their 1977 convictions for federal narcotics and firearms laws. The petition alleged jury tampering by co-defendant Guy Fisher, who reportedly bribed a juror during their original trial. Despite undertaking joint discovery with the government, the petitioners failed to produce admissible evidence to substantiate the claim beyond hearsay statements. Presiding District Judge Whitman Knapp determined that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted due to the absence of admissible evidence, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Habeas CorpusJury TamperingJury BriberyEvidentiary Hearing28 U.S.C. § 2255Federal Narcotics LawsFederal Firearms LawsDismissal of PetitionHearsay EvidenceAdmissible Evidence
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laguesse v. Storytown U.S.A., Inc.

Terry L. Laguesse and her husband sued Great Escape for personal injuries sustained when a grate fell on Ms. Laguesse at the amusement park. Following a jury award in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants appealed, arguing improper admission of hearsay evidence and an erroneous jury charge regarding prior accidents. The appellate court found that while the hearsay was improperly admitted, it was harmless error due to cumulative expert testimony establishing the defendant's constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court also upheld the lower court's refusal to charge on prior accidents, citing evidence of past failures, and affirmed the damages award for future pain and suffering as not excessive given the plaintiff's injuries and need for potential future surgeries. Therefore, the judgment and order were affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityHearsay EvidenceSpontaneous DeclarationParty AdmissionsHarmless ErrorNotice of Dangerous ConditionPrior AccidentsExcessive DamagesFuture Pain and Suffering
References
19
Case No. 2005 NY Slip Op 25220
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2005

Matter of Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This Family Court case addresses the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements in a custody modification proceeding. Petitioner Jacqueline B. sought to modify an existing joint custody order with respondent Peter K. The central question was whether the child's hearsay statements, relating to issues like communication problems and incompatible parenting styles—but not allegations of abuse or neglect—could be admitted into evidence. Presiding Justice Paula J. Hepner reviewed established case law, including _Ponzini v Ponzini_, and concluded that without specific allegations of abuse or neglect, hearsay statements from a child are inadmissible in custody proceedings under Article 6 of the Family Court Act. The court distinguished this scenario from child protective proceedings where such exceptions might apply and ruled that the child's statements were not admissible.

Custody ModificationHearsay AdmissibilityChild Witness StatementsFamily Court ProceedingsEvidentiary RulesParental RightsAbuse and Neglect AllegationsDue ProcessJoint CustodyLaw Guardian Role
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ribya BB. v. Wing

Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of her request to expunge her name from the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. An indicated report of child maltreatment was filed after she allegedly left her severely disabled and autistic child unsupervised on three occasions in November 1994. Despite her claim that a cousin was watching the child, an administrative review and subsequent hearing found 'some credible evidence as well as a fair preponderance' of evidence supporting maltreatment, leading to the denial of her expungement request. The Appellate Division confirmed the respondent's determination, citing substantial evidence including admissible double hearsay and inconsistencies in testimony, and dismissed the petition.

Child MaltreatmentExpungementState Central RegisterChild AbuseAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceHearsay AdmissibilityCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

50 Lefferts LLC v. Cole

This case involves a holdover proceeding initiated by a petitioner landlord against Shaniquca Cole, who claims succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment after the death of the tenant of record, Thelma Williams, on June 10, 2013. Cole asserts she was a member of Williams' immediate family and that the apartment was their primary residence for two years prior to Williams' death. The core issue is the admissibility of Williams' hospital records, offered by the petitioner, which contain statements from which adverse inferences about Cole's residency could be drawn. Respondent objected to these records as hearsay, but the court, referencing relevant case law, ruled that discharge planning statements within hospital records are admissible as part of a patient's treatment. The court denied the respondent's motion to bar the evidence, emphasizing that admissibility does not equate to probative weight.

Holdover proceedingSuccession rightsRent stabilizationHospital recordsHearsay exceptionBusiness recordsDischarge planMedical evidencePrimary residenceTenant rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Previl

This case addresses the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument charging defendant Anthony Previl, operating L’Eternal Qui est Dieu Restaurant, with violating Workers’ Compensation Law sections 50 and 52 for failing to secure insurance for employee Admarie Baskin. Previl sought to dismiss the complaint, contending it was an unconverted misdemeanor complaint based on hearsay. The People argued that a certified New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) decision, attached to the instrument, satisfied the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40. The court ruled that certified state department records, including WCB decisions, are admissible under CPLR 2307 and 4518 (c) as prima facie evidence of their contents, regardless of whether hearsay was considered by the WCB Judge. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, affirming the legal sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

Workers' Compensation LawAccusatory InstrumentMisdemeanorHearsay EvidenceMotion to DismissCPL 100.40CPLR 4518Certified RecordsBusiness Records ExceptionUninsured Employer
References
11
Case No. ADJ 4103043 (VNO 0476350) ADJ 3126939 (VNO 0476351) ADJ 2605301 (VNO 0476352)
Regular
Jan 05, 2011

JOHN ALLEN PERRY vs. THE KROGER CO. DBA FOOD 4 LESS, PSI, ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that surgery was "probably" required based on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's deposition testimony. The Board found that the defendant waived any objection to the applicant's evidence by failing to offer potentially contradictory reports in rebuttal at trial. Furthermore, the Board noted that it is not bound by common law evidence rules and hearsay is admissible.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRebuttalInvited ErrorHearsay AdmissibleLabor Code Sections 57085709
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,759 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