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

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Lindner

This case involves an appeal concerning judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which adjudged certain defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the Taylor Law and imposed fines. The judgment dated April 8, 1980, finding criminal contempt, was affirmed. However, the judgment dated July 14, 1980, which imposed additional fines, was modified. Specifically, provisions adjudging Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, guilty of criminal contempt and fining them were deleted. The court determined that the international unions had complied with the prior order by instructing locals to return to work, and their actions did not constitute willful defiance.

Criminal ContemptTaylor LawLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawPublic WelfareCollective BargainingStrike SanctionsInjunction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1990

People v. Pymm

This case examines whether federal regulation of workplace safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts New York State's authority to criminally prosecute employers for conduct that results in unsafe working conditions. The corporate defendants, Pymm Thermometer Corporation and Pak Glass Machinery Corporation, along with their executives William Pymm and Edward Pymm, Jr., were convicted of various criminal charges, including conspiracy, assault, and reckless endangerment, stemming from severe mercury contamination at their Brooklyn facilities which caused neurological damage to an employee. The Trial Justice initially set aside the verdict, citing federal preemption, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, concluding that OSHA does not expressly or impliedly preempt state criminal prosecutions for employer conduct, emphasizing that state criminal laws serve distinct purposes of punishment and deterrence beyond OSHA's regulatory standards.

PreemptionOSHAWorkplace SafetyCriminal ProsecutionMercury PoisoningEmployer LiabilityState LawFederal LawHazardous ConditionsCorporate Crime
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cantarella

This case involves several defendants indicted for enterprise corruption and related crimes concerning a criminal enterprise known as the "Post Circulation Crew" operating within the New York Post's circulation department. The enterprise, associated with the Bonnano crime organization, engaged in extortion, coercion, falsification of business records, larceny, and bribery for financial gain. Schemes included usury, influencing union rules, larcenous "returns" schemes, and payroll scams involving non-existent employees. The court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the vagueness of the enterprise corruption statute and the interpretation of "pattern of criminal activity" and "individual culpability." It provides a detailed analysis of the evidence for each defendant. The court ultimately dismisses the enterprise corruption count against Richard Cantarella, Vincent DiSario, Anthony Michele, Gerard Bilboa, Corey Ellenthal, and Michael Fago due to insufficient evidence of three connected criminal acts or intent to further the criminal enterprise. However, the enterprise corruption count is sustained for Anthony Turzio based on his involvement in forgery and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in the "Murro" payroll scheme.

Enterprise CorruptionOrganized CrimeRacketeeringCriminal EnterprisePattern of Criminal ActivityGrand LarcenyForgeryFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracy to DefraudSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvamoser v. Pratt Institute

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Pratt Institute and 205 Ashland Associates, for personal injuries resulting from a criminal assault. The plaintiff was robbed on a public street near her residence, owned by 205 Ashland Associates and leased by Pratt Institute, then forced into her apartment and to a bank. She alleged negligence by the defendants for a defective or open front door, contending they failed to provide adequate security. The Supreme Court found the defendants' actions were not a substantial cause of the injury, as the criminal act originated off-premises and the plaintiff would have been compelled into her apartment regardless of the door's security. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the causal connection between any negligence and the criminal act was too attenuated as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryCriminal AssaultNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCausationProximate CauseLandlord LiabilityAppellate ReviewSecurity Measures
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Rabadi

Defendant Ayman S. Rabadi filed a motion seeking to expunge his criminal record and return related fingerprints and photographs after his conviction for heroin conspiracy and importation was vacated in December 1994. The Government opposed this application. Presiding District Judge Sprizzo denied the motion, emphasizing that the federal courts' inherent equitable power to expunge criminal records is a narrow one, to be used only in 'unusual or extreme circumstances.' The Court found no such circumstances in Rabadi's case, as there was no indication of lacking probable cause for arrest, improper governmental purposes, misuse of records, or constitutional invalidity of the underlying statute. The Court also noted the compelling public need for maintaining accurate criminal records for law enforcement and deemed the records valuable law enforcement information.

expungementcriminal recordheroin conspiracynarcotics distributionequitable powersfederal courtsSecond Circuitdenied motionpublic interestlaw enforcement records
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skolny v. Hillman

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of men's and boys' clothing, filed an action against Sidney Hillman, Jacob S. Potofsky, and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, alleging an unlawful conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from instigating strikes, picketing, and coercing employees to unionize, claiming these actions violated their 'open shop' employment contracts. Defendants denied the charges, arguing their actions were lawful labor practices and challenged the complaint's legal sufficiency. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming that such alleged acts constituted a common law conspiracy and warranted injunctive relief.

Labor disputeInjunctionConspiracyPicketingUnionizationEmployment contractsUnincorporated associationsPendente liteCommon law conspiracyOpen shop
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Louis

This judicial opinion addresses a claim by Consultants for Criminal Justice Alternatives (CCJA) for $1,260 in compensation, under County Law § 722-c, for 28 hours of prepleading and presentence 'other than counsel services' provided to an un-named criminal defendant. Judge Budd G. Goodman approved 27 hours of service but reduced the hourly rate from $45 to $30, awarding $810. The court denied compensation for clerical activities. The decision extensively discussed criteria for 'reasonable compensation' based on service provider qualifications and service nature, and affirmed the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' allowing compensation above the $300 statutory limit.

Compensation ClaimCounty Law § 722-cOther Than Counsel ServicesPrepleading ReportPresentence ReportExtraordinary CircumstancesHourly Rate DeterminationParaprofessional ServicesCriminal DefenseSocial Work Standards
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 674 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