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
Dec 31, 2007

Putnam v. County of Steuben

This case involves an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs on their cause of action for malicious prosecution. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging the liability verdict and the award of damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the liability verdict, concluding that the jury rationally found the defendant's employees acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights by initiating a criminal prosecution without probable cause. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, determining that the lower court erred in setting aside the damages award, as damages for malicious prosecution can include those for arrest and imprisonment, and no false arrest claim was present to necessitate a separate instruction on avoiding duplicate awards. The judgment was unanimously affirmed without costs, and the order was modified to deny the defendant’s postjudgment motion in its entirety.

Malicious ProsecutionJury VerdictDamages AwardLiabilityCriminal ProsecutionProbable CauseActual MaliceFalse InstrumentAcquittalPostjudgment Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Romero

Defendant Israel Romero, an attorney from Honduras, was convicted of the unlawful practice of law and petit larceny. The central legal issue was whether the Attorney-General possessed the authority under Judiciary Law § 476-a (1) to initiate criminal prosecution for these offenses. The Court concluded that the term 'action' in the statute refers exclusively to a civil action, not a criminal one, a determination supported by the statutory language and legislative history, particularly sections 476-a and 476-b. The Court reasoned that extending 'action' to criminal prosecution would implausibly grant Bar associations the power to prosecute crimes. Consequently, lacking specific statutory authorization, the Attorney-General was found to be without the authority to criminally prosecute the defendant, leading to the reversal of the Appellate Division's order and the dismissal of the indictment.

Unlawful Practice of LawAttorney-General AuthorityCriminal LawCivil LawStatutory InterpretationJudiciary LawLegislative IntentProsecutorial DiscretionAppellate ProcedureIndictment Dismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ohrenstein

The Court of Appeals addressed whether the State Senate Minority Leader and his chief of staff could be criminally prosecuted for using Senate employees in political campaigns and for employing "no-show" staff. Regarding the use of staff in political campaigns, the Court affirmed the dismissal of all related criminal charges. It held that prior to 1987, there was no clear statute, rule, or regulation explicitly prohibiting such conduct or defining "proper duties" of legislative assistants to exclude political activities, thus precluding criminal prosecution on due process grounds. The Court explicitly stated it was not condoning the expenditures but interpreting criminal liability based on existing law. Conversely, the Court affirmed that prosecution for "no-show" employees was permissible, reasoning that legislative immunity and separation of powers do not protect legislators who knowingly place individuals on the payroll who perform no services, as this inherently constitutes defrauding the State.

Legislative ImmunitySeparation of Powers DoctrineCriminal LiabilityPublic Official MisconductPolitical Campaign FinanceNo-Show EmployeesDue Process Fair NoticeState Constitutional LawGovernment AccountabilityLegislative Ethics
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Criminal Bar Ass'n v. Newton

Plaintiffs, including Coastal Oil New York, Inc. and two criminal defense bar associations, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three New York State Justices, alleging that the New York County District Attorney illicitly influenced the assignment of judges to "high-profile" criminal cases, thereby violating their due process rights. The alleged scheme involved the D.A. selecting "pro-prosecution" judges for initial ex parte orders, then recommending them for grand jury duties and subsequent trials. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing mootness and lack of standing. The District Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Coastal Oil's claim was moot because the challenged judge had recused himself, and the remaining bar associations and individual plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered a concrete injury. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed.

Due ProcessJudicial AssignmentCriminal ProcedureStandingMootnessFederal Question Jurisdiction42 U.S.C. Section 1983District AttorneyJudicial Bias AllegationsRecusal
References
34
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. Morel

This case involves a criminal prosecution for contempt of court, based on the defendant allegedly violating a Supreme Court order of protection, running concurrently with a civil child neglect proceeding in Family Court where the defendant also allegedly violated an interim order of protection. The defendant moved to renew and reargue a prior decision dated June 15, 2012, which had denied dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Upon reargument, the court reversed its original ruling, finding that the criminal prosecution is barred by federal constitutional double jeopardy principles. Citing Breed v Jones, the court determined that jeopardy attached when the Family Court began to hear evidence in the combined fact-finding hearing under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, especially since the defendant faced potential punitive consequences, including incarceration, in the civil proceeding. Therefore, since the factual allegations in both the criminal and civil cases are identical in part, and the defendant faces a punitive sanction in Family Court, the criminal contempt proceeding is dismissed.

Criminal ContemptDouble JeopardyFamily Court Act Article 10Orders of ProtectionChild Neglect ProceedingsFederal Constitutional LawMotion to ReargueMotion to RenewPunitive SanctionsCivil vs. Criminal Proceedings
References
10
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

People v. McKinney

This case addresses a motion to dismiss a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespass against a union vice-president. The defendant attempted to hold a union meeting at Surfside Nursing Home, leading an administrator to file a trespass complaint. The core legal question is whether the National Labor Relations Act preempts New York State jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution. The court reviewed precedents establishing the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes to prevent conflicts between federal and state regulation. Finding the state prosecution inextricably intertwined with an unfair labor practice charge filed with the NLRB, the court stayed the prosecution pending a decision by an impartial administrator.

Criminal TrespassLabor Law PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActState JurisdictionUnion ActivitiesCollective BargainingMotion to DismissUnfair Labor PracticesNLRB JurisdictionFederal Preemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenyon v. State

Norman H. Kenyon, an employee of the Department of Labor, was suspended and indicted for grand larceny after selling scrap paper for office social events. An arbitrator later found no probable cause for his suspension, and his criminal indictment was dismissed "in the interest of justice." Kenyon and his wife subsequently filed a claim against the State, alleging malicious prosecution among other actions. The Court of Claims dismissed the malicious prosecution claim, determining that a dismissal in the interest of justice does not constitute a termination favorable to the accused. This appellate decision affirmed the dismissal, reiterating that such a disposition does not indicate innocence, which is a necessary element for a malicious prosecution claim. The court also noted that the arbitrator's finding on the suspension did not equate to a determination of probable cause for the criminal charges.

Malicious ProsecutionGrand LarcenyDismissal in the Interest of JusticeFavorable TerminationProbable CauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementState EmployeeSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gearhart

This case involves a defendant's motion to renew a prior omnibus motion seeking dismissal of an indictment. The defendant argued that a physician's testimony before the Grand Jury violated physician-patient privilege, asserting that Social Services Law §§413 and 415 do not create an exception for child abuse cases in criminal prosecutions. The court, led by Judge Raymond Harrington, reviewed arguments from both the defendant and The People, along with an amicus curiae brief. The court ultimately denied the defendant's renewal motion, adhering to its original decision. It concluded that the Legislature intended to suspend the physician-patient privilege in judicial proceedings concerning child abuse or maltreatment, including criminal prosecutions, to facilitate the protection of children and prosecution of abusers.

Child Abuse Prevention ActPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCriminal IndictmentMotion to DismissGrand Jury EvidenceStatutory InterpretationPublic PolicyDue Process ChallengeChild ProtectionConfidential Communications
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 733 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