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. 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

People v. Headley

The defendant, John E. Headley, an attorney and outside counsel for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), faced charges including grand larceny, falsifying business records, and conspiracy. He was accused of fraudulently obtaining paid assignments from the NYCTA to procure independent medical examinations (IMEs) by using a fictitious name, "James Douglas," to conceal a conflict of interest. Headley moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing a lack of intent to defraud and no pecuniary loss to the NYCTA, as the contracted IME services were rendered. The court granted the dismissal of the larceny and first-degree falsifying business records counts, ruling that the prosecution failed to demonstrate criminal intent to deprive the NYCTA of property or that the submitted documents constituted "business records" for the purpose of those specific charges. However, the motion to dismiss the charges of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree was denied, as concealing his identity frustrated the NYCTA's legitimate interests in a fair vendor selection process and accurate vendor identification, thus constituting an "intent to defraud" under that statute.

Grand LarcenyFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracyFalse PretensesIndependent Medical Examinations (IMEs)Conflict of InterestIntent to DefraudPecuniary LossSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zarkin

Respondent, admitted to law in 1979, faced multiple felony charges in 2003, including restraint of trade, enterprise corruption, and bribery, stemming from a scheme to bribe hospital workers for personal injury lawsuit candidates. He was also charged with offering false instruments for filing and falsifying business records related to false retainer statements. On November 22, 2005, respondent and his law firm, Loft & Zarkin, were convicted of two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and one count of falsifying business records in the first degree. He received a sentence of five years' probation and a $5,000 fine. The Disciplinary Committee subsequently sought his disbarment. The court granted the petition, ordering respondent's name to be stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective nunc pro tunc to November 22, 2005, citing automatic disbarment upon felony conviction under New York law.

DisbarmentAttorney MisconductFelony ConvictionFalse Instrument for FilingFalsifying Business RecordsCommercial BriberyEnterprise CorruptionProfessional EthicsAutomatic DisbarmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. M2012-00341-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Martin D. Red Patterson, as a Citizen of the State of Tennessee, and as Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369 v. The Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co.

This case addresses whether the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors, found in payroll records submitted to the Convention Center Authority (CCA), are exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA). Petitioners, Martin D. Patterson and Wayne Wells, sought these records to investigate compliance with prevailing wage laws and local hiring commitments for a public construction project. The CCA had redacted employee home addresses and social security numbers, citing privacy rights and exemptions under state and federal law. The trial court ruled that home addresses were not exempt and ordered their disclosure, though it denied attorney's fees to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TPRA does not explicitly or implicitly exempt such addresses from disclosure, and federal FOIA balancing tests are not applicable to the TPRA's framework. The appellate court further upheld the denial of attorney's fees, acknowledging the CCA's good faith in resisting disclosure.

Public Records ActEmployee PrivacyStatutory InterpretationGovernment ContractsPrevailing WageDisclosure LawsAppellate DecisionTennessee LawFOIA ComparisonAttorney Fee Discretion
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03790
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Hamling

Jerry Ray Hamling, an attorney admitted in New York in 2015, pleaded guilty in June 2020 to falsifying business records in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions directing his payroll processing company, Affinity Human Resources, LLC, to treat one of a construction client's companies as separate, leading to knowing omissions in payroll records. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose discipline, citing the conviction as a "serious crime." The Court concurred, finding the conviction, which included intent to defraud, qualified as a serious crime under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Weighing mitigating factors like a clean disciplinary record against aggravating factors such as illegal conduct despite substantial legal experience, the Court ordered a one-year suspension from the practice of law to safeguard the public and uphold professional integrity.

Attorney MisconductFalsifying Business RecordsSerious CrimeProfessional DisciplineSuspension of AttorneyPayroll FraudIntent to DefraudAppellate DivisionJudiciary Law 90Disciplinary Proceedings
References
5
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 Male G.

This case involves a proceeding under section 384-b of the Social Services Law where the Commissioner of Social Services sought to commit the custody and guardianship of a child, 'Male' G., also known as Brian Keith G. During a fact-finding hearing, the petitioner attempted to introduce the child's case record from the Bureau of Child Welfare (BCW) as a business record. The natural mother challenged its admissibility, arguing that certain entries were not made contemporaneously as required by CPLR 4518. The court, after deliberation, ruled that such records are admissible, citing that files maintained by the Department of Social Services are business records. The court clarified that the use of temporary 'day books' from which permanent records are later transcribed does not negate their admissibility, especially when the transcription relies on a previously prepared record rather than memory. Therefore, the BCW case record was ordered to be admitted into evidence.

Custody and GuardianshipSocial Services LawCPLR 4518Business Records RuleAdmissibility of EvidenceChild Welfare RecordsDay BooksPermanent RecordsTranscription ProcessEvidence Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,426 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