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

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
Apr 30, 2004

People v. Dalton

The defendant appealed a judgment from Chenango County Court following her conviction on multiple counts of sexual misconduct, rape, use of a child in a sexual performance, incest, criminal solicitation, and endangering the welfare of a child involving her three children. The appellate court found that the criminal solicitation charges should have been dismissed due to a statutory exemption and that several counts (rape, incest, use of a child in a sexual performance, and criminal solicitation) were duplicitous, requiring their dismissal with leave for the People to resubmit nonduplicitous charges. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decisions regarding the denial of a juror for cause, access to confidential counseling records, proper impeachment of a witness, and the refusal to charge the jury on accomplice testimony. The imposed maximum sentence for the remaining convictions (course of sexual conduct against a child and endangering the welfare of a child) was upheld.

Criminal LawSexual AbuseChild EndangermentIncestRapeCriminal SolicitationDuplicitous IndictmentAccomplice TestimonyAppellate ProcedureEvidence
References
30
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. Roselle

The case addresses whether the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents prosecuting a defendant for assault after a Family Court found child neglect but not child abuse in an earlier child protective proceeding. The defendant allegedly caused severe burns to his three-year-old daughter. The Family Court sustained neglect based on the defendant's testimony but dismissed the abuse charge. The County Court applied collateral estoppel to dismiss the criminal charges. The appellate court reversed, holding that the District Attorney's 'necessary party' status in Family Court proceedings does not confer a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' abuse in a manner that would bar a subsequent criminal prosecution, citing differing policy considerations between civil and criminal proceedings. Thus, the indictment counts were reinstated.

Issue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelChild AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCriminal ProsecutionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessDistrict Attorney RoleCounty Attorney Role
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Salamon

Defendant Yehuda Salamon moved to dismiss charges and declare Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional, arguing its vagueness regarding prohibited conduct, mens rea, and standard of proof. The People opposed, contending 'lack of due care' functions as a culpable mental state and the statute sufficiently defines prohibited conduct. The court analyzed the constitutionality of the statute, specifically the 'due care' standard, in the context of criminal liability and the requirement for mens rea. The court found that the civil tort liability standard of negligence ('due care') is inconsistent with criminal conduct's awareness requirement and creates unconstitutional vagueness. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion, finding Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional on its face and dismissing the related charges, while other charges remained.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessCriminal NegligenceMens ReaStrict LiabilityAdministrative CodeVehicle and Traffic LawMotion to DismissPedestrian Safety
References
64
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. 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. ADJ10013565
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

ANTONIO GUZMAN vs. KLEAN SWEEP PARKING LOT SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Trucare Pharmacy's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the prior order to stay Trucare's lien. The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof that Trucare was "controlled" by a criminally charged provider as defined by Labor Code section 139.21(a)(3). Specifically, there was no evidence that John Garbino, the criminally charged provider, was an officer, director, or 10% shareholder of Trucare Pharmacy. Therefore, Trucare's lien is not subject to a stay under Labor Code section 4615 and the case is returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 4615criminally charged providerjoint venturepartnershiplien claimantprovider statuscontrolled entitystatutory interpretationdue processadministrative director
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Town of Wallkill

Plaintiff Kimberly Mack sued the Town of Wallkill, Chief Coscette, and Officer Bruce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Mack alleged officers unlawfully arrested her at gunpoint and fabricated criminal mischief charges, with Coscette's purported involvement in inflating damages. The court denied defendants' summary judgment on false arrest and Monell claims, finding genuine factual disputes regarding probable cause and supervisory liability. However, malicious prosecution claims were dismissed as the underlying criminal charge was terminated on procedural grounds, not on the merits of Mack's innocence.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentQualified Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983Police MisconductProbable CauseMonell ClaimConstitutional RightsExcessive Force
References
36
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,248 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