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

State v. Shawn X.

The case concerns an appeal by a respondent, previously convicted of sodomy and rape, who was civilly committed under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for being a sex offender requiring civil management. The jury found he suffered from a mental abnormality predisposing him to sex offenses. On appeal, the respondent challenged the jury's finding as against the weight of the evidence, arguing against expert testimony and the use of the DSM-IV. He also claimed evidentiary errors and that the imposed regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) infringed upon his parental and marital rights. The court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no errors in the jury's verdict, the evidentiary rulings, or the SIST conditions, which included provisions for future judicial review regarding his son.

Sex Offender Civil ManagementMental AbnormalityPedophilia DiagnosisDSM-IV CriteriaExpert Witness TestimonyPost-Release SupervisionParole ViolationEvidentiary ErrorsParental RightsStrict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Yi Ching Liu

The case concerns defendant Yi Ching Liu, who was charged with using unauthorized credit card convenience checks and pled guilty. Liu sought a downward departure from sentencing guidelines, claiming diminished capacity due to pathological gambling addiction. Expert testimony from psychotherapist Stephen Block, supported by DSM IV criteria, confirmed Liu's severe addiction and a direct link to his criminal acts. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Weinstein, granted a four-point downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, resulting in a 24-month incarceration sentence. The decision emphasizes that pathological gambling can constitute significantly reduced mental capacity for sentencing purposes, citing precedent and the evolving understanding of this disorder.

Diminished CapacityPathological GamblingSentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureImpulse Control DisorderFraudCredit Card FraudCriminal SentencingDSM IVFederal Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re OSG Securities Litigation

This case involves lead plaintiffs Stichting Pensioenfonds DSM Nederland, Indiana Treasurer of State, and Lloyd Crawford, who filed a class action lawsuit against various individual, auditor, and underwriter defendants following a Senior Notes Offering by Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (OSG). OSG later filed for bankruptcy and is not a party. Plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, claiming OSG failed to disclose significant tax liabilities under Section 956. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by the Auditor and Underwriter Defendants. However, the court granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims due to insufficient allegations of scienter, but denied the motion with respect to the Securities Act claims. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotions to DismissSecurities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Auditor LiabilityUnderwriter LiabilityCorporate Tax LiabilitySection 956 Internal Revenue Code

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

State v. Shawn X.

United States v. Yi Ching Liu

Diminished CapacityPathological GamblingSentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureImpulse Control DisorderFraudCredit Card FraudCriminal SentencingDSM IVFederal Court

People v. Gans

In re OSG Securities Litigation