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
Sep 28, 1999

People v. Livotti

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of second-degree burglary and fifth-degree criminal possession of stolen property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. The appeal specifically challenged the hearing court's finding that a jewelry store worker's identification of the defendant was merely confirmatory, citing People v Rodriguez among other cases. Additionally, the defendant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, a contention which the court found to be without merit, referencing People v Suitte. The remaining contentions raised by the defendant were also dismissed.

Criminal LawBurglary Second DegreeCriminal Possession of Stolen Property Fifth DegreeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewIdentification TestimonyConfirmatory IdentificationSentence ReviewJudicial AffirmationKings County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rico-Castro v. Do & Co New York Catering, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Olympic Fence & Railing Co., Inc., sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while engaged in moving a fence within the defendant's warehouse. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The defendant appealed this order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the work, involving the removal and reinstallation of a bolted fence, constituted an "alteration" and "construction work" within the meaning of the Labor Law sections. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injuries and found no merit in the defendant's contentions regarding the timeliness of the supplemental bill of particulars for Industrial Code violations.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentLiabilityWorkplace AccidentLadder FallAlteration WorkConstruction WorkProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2005

People v. Mao-Sheng Lin

The defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, stemming from an incident where he and two others tied up Tao Lin, Lin's wife, and restaurant workers, demanding money from Lin while threatening his wife. Lin's wife escaped and summoned help, leading to the defendant's indictment. On appeal, the defendant challenged his conviction based on the merger doctrine, the competency of trial interpreters, the denial of an adjournment, judicial bias, and the suppression of his statement to police. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting all of the defendant's contentions, finding sufficient evidence for the kidnapping conviction and no errors in the trial proceedings.

Kidnapping First DegreeBurglary First DegreeCriminal Use of Firearm First DegreeExtortionMerger DoctrineInterpreter CompetencyAdjournment DenialJudicial BiasMiranda RightsSufficiency of Evidence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1992

People v. Lemma

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree. The appeal challenged the admission of a gas station attendant's testimony regarding the defendant's demand for money prior to the actual theft. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony was properly admitted because it was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted. The defendant's remaining contentions were found to be either unpreserved or without merit.

Grand LarcenyCriminal AppealAdmissibility of EvidenceTestimonyComplete NarrativeInterwoven EventsAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Pond

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of sodomy, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. The primary contention was that his confession should have been suppressed due to limited mental capacity and alleged police coercion. The court found that despite the defendant's mild retardation, he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, citing his prior experience with the criminal justice system. Additionally, the court acknowledged the improper admission of hearsay testimony as bolstering but deemed it harmless error due to overwhelming other evidence, including the victim's testimony and the defendant's confession. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.

SodomySexual AbuseEndangering Welfare of a ChildMiranda RightsConfession VoluntarinessMental CapacityHearsay TestimonyBolstering ErrorHarmless ErrorCriminal Justice System
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

People v. Sczerbaniewicz

The defendant appealed an order from Onondaga County Court, which classified him as a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act. Despite the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommending a level one risk with an override to level three, the County Court found an upward departure to level three warranted. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing clear and convincing evidence from the defendant's case summary, including his arrest for attempting to purchase child pornography and possession of over 1,500 child pornography images. The court also rejected the defendant's contention for a downward departure, concluding that aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating circumstances.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk AssessmentUpward DepartureChild PornographyAggravating CircumstancesMitigating FactorsAppellate ReviewOnondaga CountyLevel Three Risk
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Harris

This concurring opinion addresses a defendant's appeal challenging the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of his written confession. The defendant contended that his arrest lacked probable cause and that his confession, given after Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed. The court found that ample probable cause existed, citing the victim's prior statements, diary entries, and other incriminating evidence. While a lower court initially suppressed an apartment confession based on a *Payton v New York* violation, this opinion asserts that the police entry was consensual. Furthermore, it concludes that a subsequent written confession was admissible due to the attenuation of any potential taint from the initial arrest, given the time lapse and rereading of Miranda rights. Thus, the defendant's contentions were ultimately deemed without merit.

Probable CauseWarrantless ArrestMiranda RightsConfession AdmissibilityPayton v New YorkFourth AmendmentAttenuation DoctrineVoluntary ConsentCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirschhoffer v. Van Dyke

Plaintiff Lynne A. Kirschhoffer was injured in a car collision, and defendants were found solely responsible. A jury initially awarded Kirschhoffer $8,595,000 and her husband $1.8 million for derivative claims. The Supreme Court conditionally reduced these awards for future pain and suffering, impairment of earning ability, and the derivative claim, to which plaintiffs stipulated. Defendants appealed, challenging the preclusion of their medical expert's testimony regarding Kirschhoffer's pre-existing spondylolisthesis and the refusal to instruct the jury on pre-existing conditions, both of which the appellate court affirmed. The defendants' contention regarding the speculative nature of lost future earning capacity was also rejected. However, the appellate court further reduced the awards for future pain and suffering, impairment of earning ability, and derivative damages, finding the prior reductions still materially deviated from reasonable compensation, and ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless plaintiffs stipulate to the further reduced amounts.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentDamages ReductionJury AwardMedical Expert TestimonyPre-existing ConditionLost Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewPain and SufferingSpondylolisthesis
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2008

State v. Infantino

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order and judgment concerning an action by Stony Brook University Hospital against a defendant for unpaid medical services. The defendant received inpatient treatment but failed to pay the balance due. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the intermediate appeal from the order was dismissed as the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The judgment itself was affirmed. The court also rejected the defendant's contention regarding equitable estoppel based on an alleged statement about Medicaid coverage, as the defendant failed to demonstrate any action taken to apply for Medicaid.

Medical ServicesUnpaid BillsSummary JudgmentAppeal DismissedJudgment AffirmedEquitable EstoppelMedicaid CoverageHospital ChargesAppellate ReviewSuffolk County Supreme Court
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15,801 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