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
Aug 16, 1982

People v. Nieto

This case involves an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of robbery in the second degree. The core issue on appeal was whether the People presented sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of two accomplices, Anastasio Santiago and Julio Perez, who planned and executed the robbery with the defendant. The defendant allegedly informed the accomplices about the victim's valuable jewelry and suggested a time for the robbery. The court found that the evidence relied upon by the People, including the defendant's presence at the job site, association with accomplices, a statement about the robbery time, the victim's phone call testimony, and a police detective's rebuttal testimony, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for independent corroboration under CPL 60.22. The corroborative evidence, at best, only supported the accomplices' credibility but failed to connect the defendant with the crime. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the indictment was dismissed.

Accomplice TestimonyCorroboration EvidenceRobbery Second DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceIndictment DismissedAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawImpeachment EvidenceIndependent CorroborationWitness Credibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lloyd

Defendant Stephanie Lloyd was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence after her involvement in planning an armed robbery of the Wyandanch Post Office where she worked. Lloyd intended to be present during the robbery to fraudulently claim worker's compensation benefits. Although the robbery occurred on a different date than planned, and Lloyd was not present, she was found guilty. She subsequently filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in jury instructions, including the application of Pinkerton liability. The Court denied both motions, affirming the jury's verdict based on the evidence presented and proper legal standards.

Criminal LawConspiracy to Commit RobberyArmed RobberyBrandishing a FirearmJudgment of Acquittal MotionNew Trial MotionFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureSufficiency of Evidence ReviewWitness Credibility AssessmentPinkerton Doctrine
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1980

People v. Grant

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of multiple counts of robbery in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The appeal brought into review the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress a .22 caliber revolver. The case arose from an armed robbery of a sporting goods store, where the defendant and two other males, armed with guns, took money from individuals and a cash register. Police officers responded, exchanged gunfire with the perpetrators, who then fled. Officers pursued footprints in the snow to a nearby abandoned building, where the defendant was found hiding. During the apprehension, an officer recovered a .22 caliber revolver from the defendant's coat pocket. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the police actions, including the search and arrest, were justified by reasonable belief of danger and probable cause, given the exigent circumstances and the information known to the officers.

RobberyCriminal Possession of a WeaponFirst Degree RobberySecond Degree RobberyMotion to SuppressSearch and SeizureProbable Cause for ArrestExigent CircumstancesPolice PursuitConcealed Weapon
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1985

People v. Gamble

Defendant was convicted of first and second-degree robbery following a jury trial for an incident on April 8, 1984, involving a subway token booth robbery in Manhattan. After his arrest, and despite invoking his right to remain silent, Detective Clinton engaged the defendant, leading to oral and written admissions. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress these statements, deeming them spontaneous. On appeal, even the prosecution conceded some admissions were unlawfully obtained. This dissenting opinion argues that all of defendant's oral and written statements should have been suppressed as they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and were not spontaneous. The dissent concludes that the judgment of conviction should be reversed, the statements suppressed, the conviction vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

RobberyFirst Degree RobberySecond Degree RobberyMiranda WarningsRight to Remain SilentRight to CounselSuppression of StatementsSpontaneous StatementsInterrogation EnvironmentHarmless Error
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

People v. Davis

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Broome County, stemming from a 1997 robbery of a Giant Market where he was accused of aiding and abetting the actual robber. The defendant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including witness testimonies and physical evidence found at the defendant's apartment. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant an accomplice and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A procedural issue concerning the jury's request to replay a surveillance videotape was also addressed, but deemed unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyFirst DegreeAccompliceCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceJury DeliberationsProcedural ErrorPreservation Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dittert v. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jason Dittert, Anthony Lombardo, and Walter J. Finn sued Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc., for personal injuries sustained during armed robberies while employed by Dairy Barn Stores, Inc. An earlier action against Dairy Barn was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation being the exclusive remedy. Plaintiffs argued Oak Tree was the 'alter ego' of Dairy Barn or a 'joint venturer,' but this claim was also barred by Workers' Compensation Law. On appeal, plaintiffs contended a Dairy Barn District Supervisor, allegedly an Oak Tree employee, breached a duty by failing to order a store closure after a robbery warning. The court determined the supervisor was a co-employee, rendering the action barred by Workers' Compensation Law, and found no proximate cause for the injuries. Consequently, Oak Tree's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineVicarious LiabilityCo-employee DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ProcedureComplaint DismissalEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ 7906635, ADJ 7906741
Regular
May 02, 2016

LINDA ARMS vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration. The County sought to overturn an award regarding the reasonable cost of two medical-legal reports from Dr. Ali Mostafavi. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, who found the attested hours and resulting fee schedule calculations for the reports to be reasonable. The County failed to demonstrate that the time spent by Dr. Mostafavi on the reports was unreasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCounty of KernLinda ArmsADJ 7906635ADJ 7906741Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFindings Orders and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerQME
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Craig

The defendant appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree, challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the denial of eyewitness testimony for a lineup identification, and the allowance of cross-examination regarding prior convictions. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of guilt. It concluded that the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for excusing prospective jurors and that the denial of eyewitness testimony was within discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the cross-examination on prior convictions was permissible for credibility and the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's criminal record.

robberysecond degreejury verdictperemptory challengesracial discriminationBatson challengejury selectionlineup identificationprior convictionscredibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pugliese v. Remington Arms, Inc.

The claimant, employed by Remington Arms, Inc. for over three decades, sought workers' compensation benefits, citing severe depression and anxiety stemming from alleged harassment and falsification of attendance records by a supervisor. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied further adjournments for an independent medical examination (IME) report and cross-examination of the treating psychologist, determining the depression to be an occupational disease. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this, reclassifying it as a compensable accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the use of hearsay evidence, the preclusion of their IME report, and the denial of their right to cross-examine the claimant's treating psychologist. The appellate court found sufficient corroboration for the hearsay evidence and upheld the IME report's preclusion due to the carrier's delays. However, the court reversed the denial of cross-examination, stating that the absence of the IME report did not negate the carrier's right, especially given their dispute on causal relationship. Consequently, the case was reversed and remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

DepressionAnxietyWorkplace HarassmentAttendance Records FalsificationIndependent Medical ExaminationIME Report PreclusionRight to Cross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceCorroborating EvidenceOccupational Disease
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 360 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