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

United States v. Rabadi

Defendant Ayman S. Rabadi filed a motion seeking to expunge his criminal record and return related fingerprints and photographs after his conviction for heroin conspiracy and importation was vacated in December 1994. The Government opposed this application. Presiding District Judge Sprizzo denied the motion, emphasizing that the federal courts' inherent equitable power to expunge criminal records is a narrow one, to be used only in 'unusual or extreme circumstances.' The Court found no such circumstances in Rabadi's case, as there was no indication of lacking probable cause for arrest, improper governmental purposes, misuse of records, or constitutional invalidity of the underlying statute. The Court also noted the compelling public need for maintaining accurate criminal records for law enforcement and deemed the records valuable law enforcement information.

expungementcriminal recordheroin conspiracynarcotics distributionequitable powersfederal courtsSecond Circuitdenied motionpublic interestlaw enforcement records
References
23
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
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

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

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
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

People v. Currier

The case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired (DWAI) after a fatal car accident on October 16, 1992, in St. Lawrence County. The defendant's car failed to negotiate a curve, resulting in the death of his passenger, Mary Lou Smith-O’Brien. Evidence indicated the defendant had a blood alcohol content of .10% and admitted to drinking. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the prosecution's misuse of a subpoena for medical records, and the harshness of his sentence as a second felony offender. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence, ruling that the preclusion of unused medical records was an appropriate penalty for the subpoena misuse, and concluding that the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's prior criminal history.

Criminally Negligent HomicideDriving While Ability ImpairedVehicular ManslaughterBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceSubpoena Duces TecumMedical Records PreclusionSentencingSecond Felony Offender
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. United States

Dawn Stephenson, convicted of bank fraud in 1993, petitioned to expunge her record over two decades later to pursue a nursing career, believing her conviction would impede licensing. District Judge Raymond J. Dearie acknowledged Stephenson's significant rehabilitation, stable employment, and strong moral character. Despite questioning the strict "extreme circumstances" standard for expungement and its potential to undervalue employment's role in successful reentry, the court concluded that Stephenson's situation, while sympathetic, did not meet this high legal threshold. The court noted that New York state laws offer protections against discrimination based solely on criminal history for licensing. Consequently, bound by controlling precedent, the judge denied her application without prejudice, emphasizing the broader societal need for reform in how criminal records affect individuals' ability to reintegrate.

ExpungementCriminal RecordsOccupational LicensingRehabilitationBank Fraud ConvictionEmployment BarriersSecond ChanceRecidivism PreventionEquitable DiscretionMoral Character Requirement
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 4,362 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