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. Moorehead

Defendant was indicted on charges of grand larceny in the third degree and multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree for cashing workers’ compensation checks he was no longer entitled to receive. The County Court of Broome County granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment due to a lack of criminal jurisdiction, finding insufficient evidence that defendant's conduct had a "particular effect" on Broome County. The People appealed this dismissal, arguing that Broome County, being self-insured for workers' compensation, suffered a direct financial impact. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding there was no grand jury evidence that Broome County suffered an actual loss or that the defendant intended to harm the County, thus failing to establish jurisdiction.

Criminal JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation FraudIndictment DismissalParticular Effect DoctrineCounty Court AppealGrand LarcenyFalse Instrument FilingBroome CountyUtica National Insurance GroupSelf-Insured
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Formica

The case involves defendant Kenneth Formica, a partner in Formica Construction Corporation, facing a seven-count indictment including manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The charges stem from a trench collapse on December 15, 2003, in Richmond County, which resulted in the death of Lorenzo Pavia and injury to John Paci. The defendant, despite his experience and awareness of safety regulations requiring shoring or sloping for trenches over five feet deep, directed workers into an unsafe, unshored trench. The court denied Formica's motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish foreseeability of the trench collapse and support the charges, distinguishing the case from prior precedents.

Trench CollapseConstruction AccidentManslaughterCriminally Negligent HomicideReckless EndangermentAssaultSafety RegulationsForeseeabilityGrand JuryIndictment
References
10
Case No. 82-00427-01
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Oleksowicz

The People appealed the dismissal of an indictment against Stanley Oleksowicz for criminal facilitation in the fourth degree. The County Court had dismissed the indictment, reasoning that the acquittal of Michael Di Fate, the facilitated person, due to a lack of criminal intent, constituted a legal impediment to Oleksowicz's conviction. The appellate court disagreed, holding that Penal Law § 115.10(2) explicitly states that the prior acquittal of a facilitated person is not a defense to criminal facilitation. Furthermore, the court ruled that collateral estoppel could not be invoked by Oleksowicz as his interests were not directly involved in Di Fate's prior prosecution. The court reversed the dismissal, reinstated the indictment, and remitted the case to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings before a different judge.

Criminal FacilitationAcquittal as DefenseCollateral EstoppelPenal LawIndictment ReinstatementAppellate ReviewCriminal IntentLarcenyLegal Impediment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Puma

A defendant's van caused an accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing a highway worker. Evidence showed the defendant's speech was slurred, and a blood test revealed cocaine, methadone, and opiates, impairing his ability to react normally. The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manslaughter, reckless driving, and other charges. The lower court dismissed several counts in the indictment, specifically counts one, two, four, five, and six, retaining counts three, seven, and eight. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating counts one (manslaughter in the second degree, reduced to criminally negligent homicide) and two (reckless driving) because the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Criminal LawManslaughterReckless DrivingDriving While Impaired by DrugsCriminally Negligent HomicideGrand Jury IndictmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle and Traffic LawPenal Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) was indicted on a single count of enterprise corruption under Penal Law § 460.20, based on 81 pattern acts committed by individual union officers, members, or agents. The NMDU moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence and incorrect Grand Jury instructions regarding the union's liability. The court found that while a labor union, as an unincorporated association, can be criminally liable under New York law, and enterprise corruption is an appropriate charge, the Grand Jury instructions were critically flawed. Specifically, the instructions failed to adequately define terms like 'actual participation,' 'actual authorization,' and 'ratification after actual knowledge.' Furthermore, the court determined that New York's common-law no-agency rule for unincorporated associations, as established in Martin v Curran, requires proof that every union member individually authorized or ratified the criminal acts, a more stringent standard than what was presented. The court also rejected the applicability of Labor Law § 807 (6) as a general standard for union criminal liability, as it is limited to injunctions during labor disputes, which was not the context for most of the alleged acts. Consequently, the indictment against the NMDU was dismissed, with leave for the prosecution to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Enterprise CorruptionLabor Union LiabilityGrand Jury InstructionsCriminal LawUnincorporated AssociationsPenal Law InterpretationVicarious LiabilityRacketeeringOrganized CrimeLabor Racketeering
References
54
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
Apr 12, 1985

People v. Sullivan

This dissenting opinion challenges the dismissal of a second-degree manslaughter indictment against an ESU police officer involved in the fatal shooting of Eleanor Bumpurs during an eviction. The dissent argues that the Criminal Term erred by not applying the standard of viewing Grand Jury evidence most favorably to the People and by improperly re-evaluating facts reserved for the Grand Jury. Crucially, the dissent highlights expert medical testimony, ignored by Criminal Term, which stated Mrs. Bumpurs could not have held a knife after the first shotgun blast to her hand, thereby undermining the justification for the second, fatal shot to her chest based on police department guidelines. The dissent concludes that the order dismissing the indictment should be reversed and the indictment reinstated.

Criminal LawManslaughterGrand JuryIndictmentPolice Use of ForceSelf-defenseMedical ExpertEvidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors' Ass'n

This case involves multiple defendants, including associations, a labor union, and individuals, charged with criminal antitrust violations under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the ladies' blouse industry across four states. The opinion addresses various motions filed by the defendants. Defendant Strasser's motion to dismiss the indictment, based on claims of insufficient allegations regarding public injury, vagueness, and duplicity, was denied. All defendants' motions for severance, arguing prejudice due to defendant Strasser's alleged unsavory connections, were also denied. Motions for discovery under Rule 16 were largely granted to allow defendants to inspect documents obtained by the Government through seizure or process, while broad 'dragnet' requests under Rule 17(c) were denied. Finally, motions for bills of particulars were partially granted to provide essential information for defense preparation and partially denied to prevent premature disclosure of the Government's evidence, and a motion for leave to make further motions was denied.

Antitrust LawSherman ActConspiracyMonopolizationGroup BoycottCriminal ProcedureDiscovery RulesBills of ParticularsSeverance MotionIndictment Dismissal
References
17
Case No. ADJ9693986
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

CLAUDIA SIBRIAN vs. THE KROGER COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to lien claimant Firstline Health, Inc. The prior decision had stayed Firstline's lien based on allegations in a criminal indictment, which the Board found was improperly relied upon without proper notice or evidence. The Board held that allegations in a criminal indictment alone do not constitute sufficient evidence to impose a Labor Code section 4615 stay. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 4615Labor Code Section 139.21Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCriminal IndictmentDIR ListDIR Potential Stay ListEAMS NotationDue ProcessBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Baghai-Kermani

This case concerns an appeal from two Supreme Court orders regarding a defendant's conviction for criminal sale of prescription for a controlled substance. The trial court initially granted the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to set aside his conviction due to Rosario material violations, but denied his motion on jurisdictional grounds. On appeal, the higher court modified the Rosario order, reinstating most of the convictions, arguing that the Rosario violation for two counts did not necessarily taint the entire indictment. The court affirmed the denial of the jurisdictional motion, holding that the Attorney-General had broad jurisdiction under Executive Law § 63 (3) to prosecute the defendant for offenses connected with Medicaid, despite the defendant no longer being a Medicaid provider.

Criminal Sale of Controlled SubstanceCPL 440.10Rosario MaterialBrady v MarylandJurisdictionExecutive Law § 63 (3)Medicaid FraudAppellate ReviewBench TrialSelf-representation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 563 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