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

People v. Anonymous

This opinion addresses whether a complainant's statement to her insurance company constitutes Rosario material in a criminal mischief trial. Defense counsel argued for disclosure, citing the District Attorney's knowledge of the insurance claim due to restitution demands for the deductible. The court reviewed Rosario jurisprudence, emphasizing that disclosure is limited to statements within the prosecution's actual or constructive possession or control, typically made to law enforcement. It concluded that knowledge of an insurance claim or a statement made to a private entity does not create a Rosario duty for the prosecution to seek out or provide such documents. Therefore, the insurance report was deemed not to be Rosario material.

Rosario RuleDisclosureCriminal Procedure LawProsecutorial DutyInsurance ReportsWitness StatementsCriminal MischiefDiscoveryEvidenceNew York Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. ADJ3547384; ADJ1113447
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

JOSE BERRIOS vs. JERRYS FAMOUS DELI, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CENTRE INSURANCE

The applicant's current attorney petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order that awarded the entire $90,000 attorney's fee to the applicant's prior counsel due to the current attorney's failure to file a timely disclosure statement. The Appeals Board found that the current attorney's initial disclosure statement did not comply with Labor Code § 4906(e) and that payment is precluded for services rendered before a compliant form is filed. However, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further review of the factual and legal issues, noting that the order is not a final decision on the merits and encourages mediation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 4906Disclosure StatementCompromise and ReleaseCIGACentre InsuranceWCJReconsideration Granted
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Smalls

The petitioner sought an order under CPLR 3102 (c) to compel Maritime Overseas Corporation (MOC) to disclose the identities of employees who reported her alleged illegal drug use on company premises, leading to her termination. MOC argued against disclosure, claiming the employees' statements were protected by qualified privilege and that the petitioner failed to prove actual malice as required. MOC also posited an absolute privilege based on public policy against workplace drug use. The court, however, found no evidence that the statements were made in good faith, noting a lack of verification efforts. Consequently, the claim of qualified privilege was rejected. Additionally, the court denied the absolute privilege argument, citing public policy concerns about encouraging baseless accusations and the potential harm to innocent employees. The court granted the petitioner's request for preaction disclosure.

Preaction DisclosureCPLR 3102(c)Workplace Drug UseEmployee TerminationQualified PrivilegeAbsolute PrivilegeMaliceConfidentialityDiscoveryDefamation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07264 [202 AD3d 125]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Siegel v. Snyder

This case addresses the quality-assurance privilege and the party-statement exception under New York's Education Law and Public Health Law, regarding the discoverability of medical peer-review meeting minutes. The plaintiff sought minutes from a Trauma Peer Review Committee concerning a decedent's treatment, to which defendants asserted privilege. The Appellate Division clarified that the burden lies with the party claiming privilege to prove that unidentified statements in the minutes were made by nonparties, thus ruling that statements with unidentified speakers are discoverable under the party-statement exception. However, the court also determined that references to future corrective actions in the minutes are protected from disclosure. The Supreme Court's order was modified to reflect these findings, affirming the discoverability of unidentified statements while granting a protective order for subsequent corrective action discussions.

Medical MalpracticeQuality Assurance PrivilegePeer ReviewParty Statement ExceptionEducation LawPublic Health LawDiscoveryConfidentialityHospital RecordsUnidentified Speaker
References
42
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05441 [174 AD3d 1295]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2019

People v. Hymes

Defendant Justin Hymes appealed his conviction from Onondaga County Court for predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. His appeal raised several contentions, including the denial of his Antommarchi right during sidebar conferences, improper admission of uncharged crime evidence, failure to suppress his statements, and challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. Hymes also argued improper bolstering testimony regarding victim disclosures and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the Antommarchi right waived, the victim's testimony not Molineux evidence, his statements voluntary, and the evidence sufficient. The court further ruled that the victim's disclosures were admissible under prompt outcry or to explain the investigative process, and defense counsel provided meaningful representation, despite a dissenting opinion that argued for a new trial due to the lack of a limiting instruction and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellate ReviewCriminal LawSexual AssaultChild EndangermentJury SelectionAntommarchi RightMolineux EvidenceSuppression of StatementsEvidentiary IssuesIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
41
Case No. 07 Civ. 11479
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Focus Media Holding Ltd. Litigation

This consolidated putative class action involved Lead Plaintiff Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund suing Focus Media Holding Limited, its officers/directors, and underwriters for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiff claimed that Focus Media made misstatements and omissions regarding its declining gross margins in a September 2007 press release, conference call, and a November 2007 Registration Statement. Specifically, allegations included misleading earnings guidance, failure to disclose third-quarter gross margin information, and undisclosed traditional billboard acquisitions. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, finding that the plaintiff failed to state actionable claims. The decision concluded that Focus Media's disclosures complied with SEC regulations, its forward-looking statements were protected by cautionary language and the PSLRA safe harbor, and the observed decline in gross margin did not constitute an 'extreme departure' requiring accelerated disclosure.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933Private Securities Litigation Reform ActForward-Looking StatementsGross MarginFinancial DisclosureMaterial Omission
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,272 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