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. ADJ9392012
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

Hillary Schwartz vs. Ease Entertainment, Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's psychological injury claim is not barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(8). The defense argued the injury stemmed from a felony for which the applicant was convicted, but the Board found Georgia's First Offender Act does not constitute a conviction under the statute. Under the Georgia Act, the applicant's successful probation will lead to no adjudication of guilt, exonerating her and preventing it from being considered a criminal conviction. Therefore, the requirement of a felony "conviction" for the affirmative defense was not met.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsycheLabor Code Section 3600(a)(8)Felony ConvictionGeorgia First Offender ActAdjudication of GuiltCriminal TrespassInvoluntary ManslaughterDeferred Prosecution
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Burrick

The respondent, Robert Stephen Burrick, was convicted on January 13, 2003, of federal felonies including mail fraud and interstate transport of stolen property, and sentenced on April 14, 2003. The petitioner contended that these federal felonies were essentially similar to New York felonies, warranting automatic disbarment. Citing Judiciary Law § 90 and precedent, the court found that Burrick's felony conviction resulted in automatic disbarment. Consequently, the petitioner's motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys was granted, and Robert Stephen Burrick was immediately disbarred and prohibited from practicing law.

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineFelony ConvictionMail FraudInterstate Transport of Stolen PropertyProfessional MisconductAutomatic DisbarmentNew York LawLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ferrandino

Respondent Anthony Ferrandino, an attorney, was convicted of offering a false instrument for filing, a class E felony, in New York County on February 2, 2005. This conviction stemmed from his involvement in bribing hospital workers to obtain personal injury lawsuit candidates and filing false retainer statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Committee on Professional Standards sought his disbarment, citing Judiciary Law § 90 (4), which mandates automatic disbarment for state felony convictions. The court granted the petition, ordering his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys, nunc pro tunc to the conviction date. The decision highlighted that sentencing is not a prerequisite for automatic disbarment.

Attorney misconductProfessional disciplineFelony convictionDisbarmentFalse instrumentBriberyPersonal injury lawsuitsRetainer statementsAutomatic disbarmentDisciplinary Committee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dozier

The case People v. Dozier addresses whether incarceration under a subsequently vacated conviction can be used to toll the 10-year limitation for enhanced sentencing of second violent felony offenders under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). Defendant Robert Dozier's 1980 rape and sodomy conviction was vacated due to newly discovered evidence regarding the complainant's psychiatric history, leading to the indictment's dismissal. The People argued that "incarcerated for any reason" should be interpreted literally, applying even to invalid convictions unless deemed unconstitutional. The Court, affirming the Appellate Division, rejected this strict interpretation. It held that the tolling provision does not apply when incarceration results from a "without reason" or flawed conviction that is ultimately dismissed, compelling Dozier's resentencing as a first felony offender.

Second violent felony offenderEnhanced sentencingPenal LawTolling periodIncarcerationVacated convictionNewly discovered evidenceCPL 440.10Statutory interpretationCriminal law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1992

People v. Nieves

The appellant, in concert with two others, robbed a Getty Mart in Greenwich, Connecticut. During their escape, they were pursued by police into New York, where the getaway car, driven by a codefendant, crashed into a bus shelter in Bronx County, killing Ms. Gladys Davis. The appellant was convicted of felony murder. On appeal, the appellant challenged New York's jurisdiction, arguing the underlying felony occurred out of state and that he lacked accessorial accountability for the death. The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that New York had jurisdiction as the death, an element of felony murder, occurred within its borders, and the appellant's active participation in the planned escape made him liable for the foreseeable consequences of reckless flight.

Felony murderRobberyInterstate pursuitJurisdictionAccessorial liabilityReckless drivingCriminal intentAffirmative defenseConfession voluntarinessRosario rule
References
30
Case No. Ind. No. 1246/21; Appeal No. 5676; Case No. 2022-00851
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2026

Rodriguez v. CB Devs.

The defendant, Benjamin Lowman, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on February 22, 2022, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He was sentenced to a five-day jail term and a three-year conditional discharge. Defendant argued his plea was invalid because the court did not allocute him on his prior conviction, which elevated the charge to a felony, and did not arraign him on the special information. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the contention unpreserved and rejecting it on the merits as an alternative holding. The court concluded that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, noting that the special information sufficiently apprised the defendant of the elevated felony charge and he was informed of the felony at multiple junctures.

Guilty PleaVehicle and Traffic LawDUIDWIFelony ChargePrior ConvictionPlea ValiditySpecial InformationArraignmentAppellate Review
References
4
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

United States v. Peterson

Richard Peterson was indicted on three counts: wire fraud, engaging in the business of insurance after a felony conviction, and money laundering. He moved to dismiss all counts for lack of venue and Count Two for vagueness. The court, presided over by District Judge Chin in the Southern District of New York, denied both motions. The court found that venue was proper due to significant New York contacts, including the use of local insurance brokerage companies and banks, and that the statute regarding engaging in the insurance business after a felony conviction was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Peterson's alleged actions as an insurance broker, clarifying that "willfully" does not require specific intent to violate the law.

Criminal LawWire FraudInsurance FraudMoney LaunderingVenueVagueness DoctrineFederal Criminal ProcedureDue ProcessInterstate CommerceFelony Conviction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sorbello

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of felony murder and robbery. The primary issue on appeal is the application of CPL 240.75, which allows for harmless error analysis in cases of Rosario rule violations, replacing the previous per se reversal rule. The court determined that CPL 240.75 applies retroactively to all appeals heard after its effective date. Finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure of Rosario material materially contributed to the trial's outcome, the court deemed the error harmless. Additionally, the judgment was modified to mandate concurrent sentences for the murder and robbery convictions, as the robbery served as the predicate felony for the murder charge.

Criminal Procedure LawRosario RuleHarmless Error AnalysisStatutory RetroactivityFelony MurderRobbery Second DegreeSentence ConcurrencyAppellate Division DecisionDiscovery Rule ViolationWitness Impeachment
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 531 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