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

Henry v. New York State Commission of Investigation

Petitioners, Suffolk County District Attorney Patrick Henry and Assistant DA Raymond G. Perini, initiated a proceeding against the New York State Commission of Investigation (S.I.C.) and its chairman, David G. Trager. They alleged the S.I.C. overstepped its jurisdiction, interfered with the DA's duties, and violated their constitutional and statutory rights during a two-year probe into the Suffolk County Police Department and DA's office. Petitioners sought various forms of relief, including declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, and pre-release judicial review of the S.I.C.'s report. The court denied motions for intervention and discovery, concluding that the S.I.C. is a purely investigative body without adjudicatory or prosecutorial powers, thus upholding its enabling act's constitutionality and denying all of the petitioners' requested relief. The court granted the respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Investigatory PowersDue Process RightsJurisdictional DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorari ReviewState Commission of InvestigationGrand Jury AuthorityPublic Official MisconductCivil Rights Law
References
18
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

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Proceedings Special Investigation 1198/82

The Bureau of Community Services, an authorized child care agency, moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney for confidential records concerning three children believed to be victims of crimes, sought in a Grand Jury investigation. The Bureau argued these records were protected by various privileges, including social worker/client, attorney/client, physician/patient, and Social Services Law § 372. The District Attorney contended that the social worker/client privilege did not apply to child victims under CPLR 4508 (subd 3). The court, citing precedent from *Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe)*, ruled that evidentiary privileges, though important, should not obstruct legitimate Grand Jury investigations into criminal activity, especially when the Grand Jury operates in secrecy. Consequently, the motion to quash the subpoena was denied in all respects. The court did order the District Attorney to photocopy the subpoenaed materials and return the originals to the agency within five working days.

SubpoenaMotion to QuashConfidentialitySocial Worker-Client PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGrand Jury InvestigationChild VictimsSocial Services LawCPLR
References
5
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 05129
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Ansah v. A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The underlying action was a putative class action filed by security and fire safety workers, Samuel Ansah et al., against A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc., and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs sought recovery for prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, and overtime pay for work on public construction projects. The Supreme Court had denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment as premature, citing the need for production of relevant public work contracts and conflicting affidavits. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, also rejecting defendants' unpreserved argument for arbitration, stating that nonsignatories are generally not bound by arbitration agreements.

Summary judgmentclass actionprevailing wagessupplemental benefitsovertime paypublic construction projectsarbitration agreementnonsignatoriesCPLR 3212 [f]Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05907 [164 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (AWI), a subcontractor, and Whitestone Construction Corp. (Whitestone), a general contractor, over unpaid security services for public construction projects. Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI's action, citing a contractual six-month limitations period that it claimed began in April 2012. AWI appealed the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that the limitations period was unenforceable because Whitestone had stated that payment was contingent on the resolution of a separate prevailing wage class action. Citing precedent, the Appellate Division found that Whitestone's position nullified the contractual limitations period, as it created a scenario where AWI would be forced to sue for a claim that was not yet ripe. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying Whitestone's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Contractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSubcontractor PaymentPublic Construction ProjectCondition PrecedentAccrual of Cause of ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewRipeness of ClaimIndemnity Provision
References
6
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. 13 NY3d 940
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2010

People v. Rabb

Defendants Reginald Rabb and Steven Mason, operators of P&D Construction Workers Coalition, challenged the People’s eavesdropping warrant application, arguing a failure to exhaust normal investigative measures as required by CPL 700.15 (4). The investigation by the New York County District Attorney’s Labor Racketeering Unit began by targeting Akbar’s Community Services for coercive labor practices, which subsequently uncovered P&D’s similar activities and collusive efforts. Eavesdropping warrants were obtained against Rabb and Mason after initial investigative techniques like physical surveillance and undercover operations were deemed insufficient or dangerous to uncover the full scope of their criminal enterprise. Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the application adequately justified the use of eavesdropping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that there was record support for the lower courts' finding that normal investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

Eavesdropping WarrantWiretapInvestigative ProceduresExhaustion RequirementProbable CauseSuppression MotionEnterprise CorruptionGrand LarcenyLabor RacketeeringOrganized Crime
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 983 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