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
May 18, 2005

ERNST J. v. Stone

The petitioner, a chronic schizophrenic, challenged his recommitment to a psychiatric facility under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20(14) via a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He had previously pled not guilty to assault by reason of mental disease or defect and was discharged subject to an order of conditions. Following a deterioration of his mental state and a threat of sexual assault, he was recommitted. The petitioner argued that his recommitment under CPL § 330.20(14) violated equal protection and due process, as he was initially found not to suffer from a "dangerous mental disorder" or to be "mentally ill." This Court, presided over by District Judge Dearie, denied the habeas corpus application, concluding that it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to reject the petitioner’s constitutional claims, distinguishing his case from Supreme Court precedents like Foucha v. Louisiana.

Habeas CorpusCriminal Procedure LawMental Disease or DefectInsanity AcquitteeRecommitment ProceduresDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSchizophreniaOrder of ConditionsDangerous Mental Disorder
References
14
Case No. 570480/22
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2025

People v. Solomon (Jewel)

The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a judgment convicting Jewel Solomon of attempted assault in the third degree. The defendant had appealed the denial of his speedy trial motion, arguing that the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) were invalid because they had not provided video and records from a forensic interview of a child victim by the Manhattan Child Advocacy Center (MCAC). The Court ruled that these materials were not subject to automatic discovery under CPL 245.20 (1) as they were not in the prosecution's control but rather in the possession of MCAC, an independent agency. Furthermore, the People were not required to request a discovery extension under CPL 245.70 (2) for these materials. The Court found that the People complied with CPL 245.20 (2) by attempting to obtain the records via subpoena.

Speedy TrialCriminal Procedure LawDiscovery ObligationsCertificate of ComplianceCertificate of ReadinessChild Advocacy CenterForensic InterviewSubpoena Duces TecumAppellate TermAttempted Assault
References
3
Case No. 4111 110134/11 590378/12 590447/13
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Rubino v. 330 Madison Co., LLC

Plaintiffs William Rubino, et al., moved for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241(6) claim against defendants 330 Madison Company, LLC and Tishman Construction Corp. The claim arose from injuries sustained when Mr. Rubino's safety harness contacted an electrified BX cable, violating Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.13(b)(3) and (4). The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion, dismissed appellants' indemnification and contribution claims against Michael Mazzeo Electric Corp., and granted W5 Group LLC d/b/a Waldorf Demolition's cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying Waldorf's cross-motion as untimely, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code § 23-1.13Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElectrocutionSafety HarnessBX CableNondelegable DutyIndemnification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miccoli v. W.T.

The Nassau County District Attorney's Office sought an order to authorize doctors and staff at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center to communicate directly with the DA regarding W.T.'s treatment and care. This was in preparation for a CPL 330.20(8) hearing to determine if W.T. is dangerously mentally ill. The court denied the application without prejudice, ruling that the DA failed to demonstrate that W.T.'s existing medical records, which they already possessed, and the option for an independent psychiatric examination were insufficient. The court emphasized that the hearing is a civil proceeding, and W.T. did not waive his privacy rights by requesting it, highlighting the greater protections afforded by Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) over federal privacy rules, which requires a finding that the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality.

Mental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawPatient ConfidentialityPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeCivil CommitmentDangerous Mental IllnessDue Process RightsWaiver of PrivilegeForensic Psychiatric CenterDistrict Attorney Authority
References
11
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Borst

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (petitioner) sought to compel the sale of the principal residential premises owned by Clifford and Roselyn Borst (respondents) to satisfy a judgment exceeding $330,000. The petitioner argued that the property's value exceeded the then-applicable $10,000 state exemption, making it eligible for sale. Respondents countered that state law, within the bankruptcy context, permitted the aggregation of exemptions to $20,000 for joint debtors and that their property's market value was lower than the petitioner's claim. The court determined that New York's Debtor and Creditor Law § 284, when read in conjunction with Federal bankruptcy policy, allows for the aggregation of real property exemptions for joint debtors to $20,000. Consequently, the court ordered a hearing in Special Term, Supreme Court, to ascertain the current market value of the property to determine if it exceeds the established $20,000 exemption, which would then permit a judicial sale.

Homestead ExemptionBankruptcyCPLR 520611 USC 522Debtor and Creditor Law 284Joint DebtorsExemption AggregationJudicial SaleProperty ValuationChautauqua County
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05774 [120 AD3d 552]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2014

Karanikolas v. Elias Taverna, LLC

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Nikolaos Karanikolas, who fell from a ladder while performing construction work in a building owned by 20 John Street, LLC and leased by Elias Taverna, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Key modifications included denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, granting parts of the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on specific Industrial Code sections, and granting 20 John Street's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against Elias Taverna. Additionally, the court granted Elias Taverna's cross-motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against it, as well as claims for common-law indemnification and contribution.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial CodePremises Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Carvajal

This case addresses whether New York had territorial jurisdiction over a defendant prosecuted for first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy, despite the defendant residing and the cocaine being seized in California. The New York State Drug Enforcement Task Force uncovered an interstate drug trafficking ring transporting cocaine from San Francisco to Queens County, New York. The defendant, the West Coast partner, was involved in planning shipments and overseeing drug preparation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that New York rightly exercised jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 (1) (c) because a conspiracy to commit the possessory offenses occurred in New York, evidenced by the defendant's physical presence and numerous telephone conversations with New York-based accomplices.

Territorial JurisdictionCriminal Possession Controlled SubstanceConspiracyInterstate Drug TraffickingConstructive PossessionTelecommunications LawOvert ActsWaiver of Jury ChargeAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,261 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