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. CPL article 440 motion
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

People v. G.M.

Defendant G.M. moved to vacate six convictions—two for prostitution, two for criminal trespass, and two for drug possession—which occurred between September 1997 and January 1998. G.M. contended she was a victim of human trafficking and severe domestic abuse by her husband, D.S., who forced her into illegal activities under threat of violence. The New York State Legislature amended Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 in August 2010, allowing sex trafficking victims to vacate prostitution-related convictions. The Queens County District Attorney's Office consented to G.M.'s motion for all six convictions, citing her truthful affidavit and the unique circumstances. On April 1, 2011, the court granted the motion, vacating all judgments of conviction and dismissing the accusatory instruments, recognizing G.M.'s status as a trafficking victim, which was also recognized by a federal agency that granted her a 'T Visa'.

Human TraffickingSex TraffickingVacatur of ConvictionsCriminal Procedure Law § 440.10Prostitution OffensesCriminal TrespassDrug PossessionDomestic ViolenceCoercionAbuse
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2007

People v. Guardino

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in New York County of enterprise corruption, combination in restraint of trade, bribe receiving, and grand larceny, and sentenced to 6 to 18 years. The conviction stemmed from the defendant's role as a labor official in the "Local 8 Group," a criminal enterprise involved in labor racketeering, accepting bribes and extortion from roofing contractors for "labor peace." The court affirmed the judgment, upholding the denial of the defendant's Batson challenge, finding the numerical argument insufficient for a prima facie case of discrimination. Additionally, the court properly handled jury deliberations and mistrial requests, ensuring no coercion. The "criminal enterprise" element was supported by ample evidence of long-term criminal activity by union officials, solidifying the defendant's conviction.

Enterprise CorruptionLabor RacketeeringBribe ReceivingGrand LarcenyBatson ChallengeJury DeliberationAllen ChargeCriminal EnterpriseDonnelly ActUnion Officials
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1992

People v. Ramos

Alberto Ramos was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in 1985. Seven years later, Ramos filed a motion under CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction, alleging the prosecution withheld crucial Rosario and Brady material. The undisclosed documents contained evidence favorable to the defense, including information about the child victim's prior sexual knowledge, masturbation, inconsistencies in her statements, and a discrepancy regarding who picked her up from day-care. The court found that the prosecution failed to disclose these materials and that there was a reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different had they been disclosed. The Supreme Court's order granting Ramos's motion to set aside the conviction and ordering a new trial was unanimously affirmed.

Sexual AbuseChild VictimRosario MaterialBrady MaterialProsecutorial MisconductWithheld EvidenceCPL 440.10 MotionVacate ConvictionNew Trial OrderedWitness Credibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1985

People v. Gamble

Defendant was convicted of first and second-degree robbery following a jury trial for an incident on April 8, 1984, involving a subway token booth robbery in Manhattan. After his arrest, and despite invoking his right to remain silent, Detective Clinton engaged the defendant, leading to oral and written admissions. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress these statements, deeming them spontaneous. On appeal, even the prosecution conceded some admissions were unlawfully obtained. This dissenting opinion argues that all of defendant's oral and written statements should have been suppressed as they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and were not spontaneous. The dissent concludes that the judgment of conviction should be reversed, the statements suppressed, the conviction vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

RobberyFirst Degree RobberySecond Degree RobberyMiranda WarningsRight to Remain SilentRight to CounselSuppression of StatementsSpontaneous StatementsInterrogation EnvironmentHarmless Error
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Craig

The defendant appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree, challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the denial of eyewitness testimony for a lineup identification, and the allowance of cross-examination regarding prior convictions. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of guilt. It concluded that the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for excusing prospective jurors and that the denial of eyewitness testimony was within discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the cross-examination on prior convictions was permissible for credibility and the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's criminal record.

robberysecond degreejury verdictperemptory challengesracial discriminationBatson challengejury selectionlineup identificationprior convictionscredibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2011

People v. Bright

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for larceny from a person and found the admission of background testimony about 'lush workers' and their pickpocketing methods to be a proper exercise of discretion. The court also found no basis for reducing the sentence.

Grand LarcenyFourth DegreeLarceny from PersonSufficiency of EvidencePolice TestimonyLush WorkersPickpocketing MethodsAdmissibility of Background TestimonySentence ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Baghai-Kermani

This case concerns an appeal from two Supreme Court orders regarding a defendant's conviction for criminal sale of prescription for a controlled substance. The trial court initially granted the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to set aside his conviction due to Rosario material violations, but denied his motion on jurisdictional grounds. On appeal, the higher court modified the Rosario order, reinstating most of the convictions, arguing that the Rosario violation for two counts did not necessarily taint the entire indictment. The court affirmed the denial of the jurisdictional motion, holding that the Attorney-General had broad jurisdiction under Executive Law § 63 (3) to prosecute the defendant for offenses connected with Medicaid, despite the defendant no longer being a Medicaid provider.

Criminal Sale of Controlled SubstanceCPL 440.10Rosario MaterialBrady v MarylandJurisdictionExecutive Law § 63 (3)Medicaid FraudAppellate ReviewBench TrialSelf-representation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Linzy

The case involves an appeal against a conviction for rape in the first degree, focusing on the sufficiency of corroborating evidence and the adequacy of jury instructions. The appellant contended that the complainant's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration of identity and that the trial court erred in its charge regarding exhibits as corroboration. The majority affirmed the conviction, finding ample corroboration from the complainant's observations and identification, supported by physical evidence. However, the dissenting judges argued that the corroborative evidence was weak and the confusing jury charge on corroboration led to a speculative verdict, necessitating a new trial.

Rape (First Degree)CorroborationJury InstructionsCriminal AppealWitness IdentificationPhysical EvidencePenal LawDue ProcessAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 515 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