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. Smith

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The appeal concerned the prosecutor's peremptory challenges during jury selection. The trial court found a pattern of intentional discrimination against black prospective jurors, specifically noting the prosecutor's inability to provide a race-neutral reason for one challenge and finding another pretextual. The appellate court focused on the prosecutor's challenge of a prospective juror based solely on his employment as a postal worker, ruling that such a reason must relate to the case facts or the juror's qualifications. Finding this explanation pretextual, the appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Jury SelectionPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ReasonEmployment-Based ChallengePretextual ExplanationRacial DiscriminationCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew TrialAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cantalino

Joann Cantalino faced criminal charges including assault, menacing, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief, and harassment after she attempted to serve a court order by literally 'nailing' it to her estranged husband's door, as explicitly directed by Justice Rigler. She was confronted by Jacqueline Danner, a police officer cohabiting with her husband, leading to a physical altercation and property damage. Justice Maltese dismissed the criminal court information in the interest of justice, ruling that Cantalino was not criminally culpable because she acted under the literal instruction of a court order. The court found no criminal intent for the alleged offenses and deemed the criminal court an inappropriate forum for such a matrimonial dispute, suggesting civil remedies for any damages.

dismissal in interest of justicecriminal mischiefassaultmenacingharassmentcriminal possession of weaponmatrimonial disputeservice of processnail and mailcourt order compliance
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00978 [158 AD3d 1291]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

People v. Holdby

Defendant Christopher Holdby appealed a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, which the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed. The court upheld the County Court's decision to not suppress guns found in his apartment and his statements to the police, deeming the search lawful due to a probation violation and the statements investigatory. It was determined that the conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence, not against the weight of the evidence, and the "home exception" to weapon possession was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Holdby's CPL 330.30 (1) motion to set aside the verdict based on ineffective assistance of counsel without a hearing, noting counsel's strategic handling of evidence.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond Degree Weapon PossessionSuppression HearingProbation ViolationLawful SearchInvestigatory QuestionsLegally Sufficient EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHome ExceptionIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2006

People v. Wilson

The defendant appealed a judgment from Erie County Court, rendered February 1, 2006, which convicted him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees. The appeals court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the victim's in-court identification was improper, finding an independent basis for the identification. It also dismissed claims regarding the cross-examination of alibi witnesses and a related jury charge, as well as the prosecutor's peremptory challenge. Furthermore, the court found no prosecutorial overreaching causing a mistrial that would bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds, and concluded the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and the sentence was not unduly harsh. The certificate of conviction was noted to be incorrect regarding one of the weapon possession charges.

attempted murderassaultcriminal possession of weaponin-court identificationindependent sourcealibi witnessesperemptory challengeBatson challengedouble jeopardyprosecutorial misconduct
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Argudin

This opinion addresses a legal issue raised during a jury trial where the defendant was accused of third-degree assault and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The defense demanded that the prosecution produce notes taken by a private attorney's secretary from the complainant, considering them Rosario material for cross-examination. The prosecution argued they neither possessed nor controlled these notes, and the attorney asserted attorney-client privilege. The court ruled that the notes are not Rosario material, citing lack of prosecution possession or control and the statutory attorney-client privilege. Consequently, the prosecution is not obligated to produce the notes for trial.

Rosario MaterialDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeProsecutorial ControlWitness StatementCriminal ProcedureAssaultWeapon PossessionTrial EvidenceConfidentiality
References
14
Case No. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

The People v. Anthony Debellis

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Anthony Debellis for criminal possession of a weapon, ordering a new trial. The Court found that Debellis's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the statutory defense of voluntary surrender, which was supported by Debellis's testimony. Instead, counsel sought an inapplicable charge on temporary and lawful possession. The dissenting opinion argued that no reasonable view of the undisputed facts supported a voluntary surrender charge and that counsel's overall performance was not deficient.

Effective Assistance of CounselIneffective CounselJury InstructionsVoluntary Surrender DefenseCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew York Court of AppealsAppellate ReversalNew TrialLegal EthicsConstitutional Law
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02891 [149 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

People v. Pimentel

The defendant appealed his conviction for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree as a crime of terrorism. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The court found that while the defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, his challenges to the statute defining "a crime of terrorism" were unwaivable. The court rejected claims of federal preemption, stating that congressional intent to preempt state legislation in counterterrorism was not shown. It also found the statute not unconstitutionally vague and upheld it against challenges under the Free Speech Clause, concluding that heightened punishment for criminal conduct with terrorist intent does not infringe on free speech.

Attempted Criminal PossessionWeaponCrime of TerrorismAppeal WaiverStatutory InterpretationFederal PreemptionConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeFirst AmendmentFree Speech Clause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2006

People v. Benston

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Supreme Court, Bronx County, of multiple charges including assault, attempted assault, criminal possession of a weapon, and criminal contempt. The judgment, rendered on June 28, 2006, was unanimously affirmed. The court properly admitted limited references in medical records and testimony regarding the victim's domestic violence diagnosis, as it directly impacted her prescribed treatment. The court's reasonable limitations on the defendant's impeachment of the victim did not violate his right of confrontation, as questioning became repetitive. Additionally, the court rightly ruled against redacting a 911 call recording, determining that such redaction could mislead the jury.

Assault Second DegreeAttempted AssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponCriminal ContemptIntimidating Victim or WitnessAggravated HarassmentHarassmentJury TrialEvidentiary RulingsDomestic Violence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 1986

People v. Morales

The Supreme Court, New York County, reversed a prior order that had granted the defendant's motion to suppress a loaded .38 caliber revolver and his statements to police. This case originated from a 1982 indictment for criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals previously reversed an affirmation of suppression, clarifying that a frisk does not automatically trigger custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. On remand, Criminal Term again granted suppression without a new hearing. The Supreme Court, applying the Court of Appeals' principles, found that the detective's interaction with the defendant did not constitute custodial interrogation, as there was no restraint of freedom or force beyond a frisk and non-coercive questioning. Consequently, the motion to suppress was denied, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Suppression MotionCriminal Possession of a WeaponMiranda RightsCustodial InterrogationStop and FriskFourth AmendmentAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityPolice ProcedureReversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,393 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