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. Carter

The defendant, a general manager at Comfort Inn in Jamestown, was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree for stealing money from the motel's cash receipts. The defendant appealed, arguing that a moral certainty instruction for circumstantial evidence should have been given. The court disagreed, citing direct evidence from a co-worker who witnessed the defendant taking money and the defendant's own admission of taking funds for rent. Additionally, there was direct evidence that the defendant entered erroneous check amounts in the motel's ledger. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's decision not to issue a circumstantial evidence charge with the 'moral certainty' standard, as the evidence presented was both direct and circumstantial.

Grand LarcenyCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceMoral Certainty InstructionAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceTheftEmployee MisconductTrial Court Error
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Canzoneri v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff, Robert Canzoneri, had alleged personal injuries from falling on debris. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the plaintiff's inability to precisely identify the defect warranted dismissal. However, the appellate court clarified that circumstantial evidence can establish negligence and causation even without exact testimony on how an accident occurred. The court found that Canzoneri's testimony, supported by a workers' compensation claim form, incident reports, and a coworker's testimony about debris, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Supreme Court to address other issues that had not been resolved.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment ReversalCircumstantial EvidenceNegligenceCausationWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemandVacated Judgment
References
7
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. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1995

People v. Cantres

The decedent was shot to death at point-blank range in a housing project stairwell on April 16, 1992. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct witnesses and the weapon was never recovered. Key testimony came from residents Lehra Brooks and Warren Coles, who placed the defendant at the scene, and from Steven Wise, who testified about the defendant's alleged confession. The court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence and whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, ultimately affirming the conviction.

MurderCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWitness CredibilityConsciousness of GuiltHomicideCriminal LawNew York
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Mohammed

Defendant Taj Mohammed was indicted on federal drug conspiracy charges, including importing heroin and possession with intent to distribute. He filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, challenging the sufficiency of the government's evidence. The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including the receipt of a package containing heroin and an alleged incriminating statement. Finding the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding his knowledge and participation in a conspiracy, the court granted the motion for acquittal on all counts. Mohammed was ordered to be released from custody.

Federal Criminal LawDrug ConspiracyJudgment of AcquittalRule 29 FRCPSufficiency of EvidenceCircumstantial EvidenceHeroin TraffickingIntent to DistributePossessionSecond Circuit Court of Appeals
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff Antoinette Harrison slipped and fell on ice at the Pelham Bay Park subway station in the Bronx, fracturing her left ankle. The jury instruction on constructive notice was found to be in error, despite sufficient evidence being presented for the jury to consider the issue. The appellate court determined that while there was no evidence of actual notice, circumstantial evidence, including weather reports and recurring water conditions from a canopy, was sufficient to warrant jury consideration of constructive notice. The court affirmed the damages awarded but remanded the case for a new trial solely on the issue of liability.

Slip and FallSubway AccidentConstructive NoticeJury Instruction ErrorPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceIce and SnowDamagesRemand
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2001

Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority

The plaintiff allegedly slipped on an oily, yellowish substance on a roof landing near a renovation site being worked on by Marte Construction, Ltd. There was evidence that Marte used similar oily substances in their construction project and their workers frequently used the area. Although Marte claimed the area was cleaned, no evidence suggested others used the stairs after their crew left. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied Marte's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding circumstantial evidence suggested Marte could have created the dangerous condition, thus raising an issue of fact for trial.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction Site AccidentSlippery SubstanceCircumstantial EvidenceIssue of FactAppellate AffirmationDenial of Motion
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,478 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