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. 570558/19
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2019

Prasad v. Spodek

This case involves an appeal by Todd Spodek, Esq. from a Civil Court judgment affirming an arbitration award in favor of Sunita Prasad. Spodek sought to vacate the award, arguing it was untimely and that the arbitrator improperly excluded his paralegal's hearsay testimony. The Appellate Term found Spodek's application was not untimely but denied it on the merits. The Court held that the arbitrator's refusal to consider the paralegal's hearsay testimony, which was based on conversations with Spodek and lacked competence to prove fee reasonableness, did not constitute misconduct. Spodek had alternative means to present evidence, such as testifying himself or submitting written declarations.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardHearsay EvidenceParalegal TestimonyArbitrator MisconductCPLR 7511Fee DisputeAppellate TermBurden of ProofReasonableness of Fee
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03326
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Matter of D.F. (Erica L.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court, Bronx County's finding that the mother, Erica L., neglected her child, D.F., by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. The child's consistent in-court testimony, corroborated by statements to emergency and ACS workers, detailed multiple incidents of physical abuse with various objects, causing pain and fear. The court found the child's testimony credible and the mother's incredible. The decision emphasized that sworn testimony alone is competent evidence of abuse, even without physical injury, and that the punishments were not justified as reasonable discipline. Procedural arguments by the mother regarding pleadings and hearsay were unpreserved or found unavailing.

child neglectcorporal punishmentphysical abuseFamily Court Actcredibility determinationappellate reviewevidentiary standardschild testimonyAdministration for Children's Servicesparental rights
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08744
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

Nava-Juarez v. Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Eusebio Nava-Juarez sought partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim after falling from a shifting ladder while painting a building. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted the plaintiff's motion. The court found that the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through his testimony and a coworker's affidavit. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as their reliance on a mistranslated C-3 report, which stated the plaintiff fell down stairs, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court clarified that the defendants did not prove the plaintiff was the source of the inaccurate information or provide a competent translator. Both Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC as the fee owner, and Mosholu Enterprises as the tenant, were found liable under the Labor Law.

Ladder accidentsummary judgmentLabor LawhearsaymistranslationC-3 reportworker's compensationpremises liabilityappellate reviewevidentiary standards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Victor G.

This case involves a respondent's motion to dismiss an underlying delinquency petition and vacate prior court orders. The respondent argued that the original March 1993 petition, which charged drug possession, was jurisdictionally defective because the attached police laboratory report, certifying cocaine, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court, presided over by Harvey M. Sklaver, J., reviewed the legal sufficiency of similar laboratory reports in light of recent precedents, including Matter of Rodney J. and Matter of Enriquillo S. While acknowledging the potential facial insufficiency of the petition under these new interpretations, the court concluded it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the initial proceeding. The court determined that defects in a petition, while grounds for dismissal, do not negate the court's fundamental competence. Ultimately, the court declined to retroactively apply the Rodney J. rule to disturb orders that had already become final, citing the doctrine of res judicata and finding the petition's deficiency not fundamental enough to warrant vacating orders over a year old. Consequently, the respondent's motion was denied.

Juvenile DelinquencyExtension of PlacementHearsay EvidencePolice Laboratory ReportJurisdictional DefectSubject Matter JurisdictionRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFamily Court ProceduresAdmissibility of Evidence
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Tasker

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Broome County following a plea of guilty to sodomy in the first and second degrees. The appeal challenged the denial of a motion to suppress his confession and evidence, arguing an illegal arrest. Defendant also contested the determination of his competency to stand trial and the competency of the young victims to testify. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police, waived his constitutional rights, and consented to questioning. The court also found sufficient support for the lower court's determinations regarding the defendant's and victims' competencies.

sodomychild sexual abuseconfession suppressionillegal arrestcompetency to stand trialvictim competencyappellate reviewcriminal appealplea of guiltyBroome County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mack

The defendant appealed the County Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony murder and first-degree robbery. The initial appeal led to a remittal, vacating earlier competency findings and the denial of plea withdrawal due to a Sixth Amendment violation. Upon remittal, after further examination and an evidentiary hearing, the County Court again found the defendant competent at the time of his 2003 plea and denied his motion to withdraw it, as well as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The current appellate court affirmed the County Court's decision, finding that the record supported the conclusion that the defendant was competent and his plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that counsel provided meaningful representation.

Felony MurderRobbery First DegreeGuilty Plea WithdrawalCompetency to Stand TrialIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSixth AmendmentMental Health EvaluationSchizo-affective DisorderPlea Colloquy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Weech

The case involves an appeal from a defendant's murder conviction where the case was remitted to Trial Term to reconstruct the defendant's competency to stand trial. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Wellington Reynolds and Dr. Odysseus Adamides, assessed the defendant's competency based on various reports and observations. Dr. Reynolds had examined the defendant prior to trial. The defendant challenged Dr. Reynolds' credentials, asserting he was not a "qualified psychiatrist" under CPL 730.10(5)(a). The court previously remitted the case for a reconstruction proceeding. This current decision remits the matter once more for an adversary inquiry into the defendant's competency, clarifying that Dr. Reynolds' testimony, even if not from a "qualified psychiatrist," is admissible, and other professionals like the social worker, nurse, defense counsel, and Trial Judge could also testify.

Competency to Stand TrialReconstruction ProceedingPsychiatric EvaluationCriminal Procedure LawAdmissibility of Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessMental Health ServicesDefendant's RightsMurder Second Degree
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Zon

Thomas Lewis, convicted of second-degree robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state trial court's ad hoc competency procedure. The trial court heavily relied on a social worker's report, commissioned after the competency hearing, without affording Lewis an opportunity to contest it or cross-examine the social worker. This District Court found that this procedure violated Lewis's Due Process rights, as it constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law requiring a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate incompetence. Given the impossibility of conducting a meaningful retrospective competency hearing due to the lapse of time and limitations of the original record, the court granted the habeas corpus petition. Lewis is to be discharged unless the State elects to retry him within 90 days.

habeas corpusdue processcompetency hearingpsychiatric examinationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausestate proceduresfederal lawcriminal prosecutionsecond-degree robbery
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis

OTG Management, LLC, a provider of airport food and beverage services, sought a preliminary injunction against its former operations manager, Aris Konstantinidis, and competitor SSP America, Inc. OTG alleged Konstantinidis breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by joining SSP. The court, presided by Shirley Werner Kornreich, J., partially granted the injunction. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable, citing Konstantinidis's non-unique services and the arbitrable nature of trade secret claims. However, the non-recruitment clause was deemed reasonable and enforceable, prohibiting Konstantinidis from soliciting OTG employees until April 18, 2015. The court denied the non-compete injunction and stayed the tortious interference claim against SSP, pending arbitration between OTG and Konstantinidis.

Preliminary InjunctionNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseTrade SecretsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceArbitrationEmployment AgreementAirport Services
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 321 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