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. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1987

People v. Stevenson

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, one count of assault in the first degree, and two counts of assault in the second degree after repeatedly stabbing his wife and forcing his stepdaughter out a window. On appeal, the court considered whether a lesser included offense charge for reckless assault should have been given, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of intoxication to warrant it. The court also held that the conviction for assault in the second degree under the fourth count of the indictment should be reversed and dismissed as it constituted a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, and a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of both. The judgment was largely affirmed, but modified to dismiss the aforementioned assault charge.

Attempted MurderAssaultLesser Included OffenseIntoxication DefenseCriminal AppealPrior Inconsistent StatementHearsaySpousal AbuseChild EndangermentJury Charge
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. 10-06-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2008

Navasota Resources, L.P. v. First Source Texas, Inc., First Source Gas, LP, Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC F/K/A Bossier Basin, LLC, First Texas Gas, LP, First Source Bossier LLC, Gastar Exploration, LTD., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration LP & Chesapeake Operating. Inc

Navasota Resources, L.P. initiated a lawsuit to enforce a preferential right clause within a joint operating agreement with First Source Texas, Inc. and related entities concerning oil and gas interests. The trial court granted summary judgment for First Source and Chesapeake Energy Corp., denying Navasota's motion. On appeal, the court examined whether the preferential right was triggered by a multi-asset 'package deal' and if Navasota was obligated to accept all additional terms. The appellate court determined that the preferential right was indeed invoked, and Navasota was not required to agree to unrelated conditions like stock purchases or entry into an Area of Mutual Interest. Consequently, the court found a binding contract was formed, the preferential right provision was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and rejected defenses of mistake or unconscionability. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, with judgment rendered in favor of Navasota for breach of contract and specific performance, and the case was remanded for determination of attorney's fees and revenues.

Oil and GasPreferential RightJoint Operating AgreementSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceRestraint on AlienationPackage DealAppellate ReviewContractual Option
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bobby Duncan v. First Texas Homes and First Texas Homes, Inc.

Bobby Duncan, an employee of First Texas Homes, sustained injuries after falling from stairs on a construction site. He alleged negligence, citing unsafe working conditions and failure to inspect the premises, particularly due to insufficient clearance on the stair platform that violated OSHA and company safety standards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Texas. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding First Texas's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and if First Texas's negligence was the proximate cause of Duncan's injuries. The court emphasized that an employee's awareness of a defect does not necessarily eliminate the employer's duty in a nonsubscriber case.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerOccupational SafetyConstruction Site InjuryHazardous ConditionForeseeabilityProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
61
Case No. 13 NY3d 747
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McKinnon

The case concerns the appeal of a defendant's conviction for first-degree assault, among other crimes, in New York. The core legal issue revolves around whether bite marks inflicted by the defendant on the victim's inner forearm constituted "serious disfigurement" under Penal Law § 120.10 (2). The court, while acknowledging a definition for "disfigurement," found the evidence—consisting of two moderate-sized scars—insufficient to establish serious disfigurement. The court emphasized that the mere existence of scars in that location, without unusually disturbing characteristics, would not make the victim's appearance distressing or objectionable to a reasonable person. Consequently, the first-degree assault conviction and a related second-degree assault count were reversed and dismissed, with the case remitted for further proceedings on a remaining second-degree assault charge.

Criminal LawAssaultFirst Degree AssaultSerious DisfigurementPenal LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsBite MarksPhysical Injury
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03556 [217 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2023

People v. Lopez

Sammy Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree (two counts), and coercion in the first degree (four counts), and sentenced as a second violent felony offender. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The court also upheld the admission of evidence of prior incidents to show a common scheme or plan. Additionally, the defendant's CPL 440.10 motions asserting ineffective assistance of counsel were denied, as he was aware of the plea offer and had no interest in incarceration. The appellate court found no basis to reduce the sentence.

AssaultCoercionJury TrialSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationsCommon Scheme or PlanPrior IncidentsEffective Assistance of CounselPlea NegotiationsSentencing
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,506 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