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. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

People v. Davis

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Broome County, stemming from a 1997 robbery of a Giant Market where he was accused of aiding and abetting the actual robber. The defendant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including witness testimonies and physical evidence found at the defendant's apartment. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant an accomplice and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A procedural issue concerning the jury's request to replay a surveillance videotape was also addressed, but deemed unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyFirst DegreeAccompliceCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceJury DeliberationsProcedural ErrorPreservation Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Fredericks

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of multiple counts of robbery and attempted robbery. The appellate court found that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request an affirmative defense instruction regarding the use of a BB gun, which is not a loaded weapon capable of causing serious physical injury, to distinguish first-degree from second-degree robbery. Additionally, the trial court erred in its jury instructions on the lesser-included offense without clarifying the affirmative defense. As a result, the convictions for first-degree robbery and attempted first-degree robbery were reduced to second-degree, and the case was remitted for resentencing.

Ineffective assistance of counselRobbery first degreeRobbery second degreeAttempted robberyJury instructionsLesser-included offenseAffirmative defenseBB gun as weaponCriminal possession of weaponGrand larceny
References
10
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
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. 10-06-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2008

Navasota Resources, L.P. v. First Source Texas, Inc., First Source Gas, LP, Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC F/K/A Bossier Basin, LLC, First Texas Gas, LP, First Source Bossier LLC, Gastar Exploration, LTD., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration LP & Chesapeake Operating. Inc

Navasota Resources, L.P. initiated a lawsuit to enforce a preferential right clause within a joint operating agreement with First Source Texas, Inc. and related entities concerning oil and gas interests. The trial court granted summary judgment for First Source and Chesapeake Energy Corp., denying Navasota's motion. On appeal, the court examined whether the preferential right was triggered by a multi-asset 'package deal' and if Navasota was obligated to accept all additional terms. The appellate court determined that the preferential right was indeed invoked, and Navasota was not required to agree to unrelated conditions like stock purchases or entry into an Area of Mutual Interest. Consequently, the court found a binding contract was formed, the preferential right provision was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and rejected defenses of mistake or unconscionability. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, with judgment rendered in favor of Navasota for breach of contract and specific performance, and the case was remanded for determination of attorney's fees and revenues.

Oil and GasPreferential RightJoint Operating AgreementSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceRestraint on AlienationPackage DealAppellate ReviewContractual Option
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bobby Duncan v. First Texas Homes and First Texas Homes, Inc.

Bobby Duncan, an employee of First Texas Homes, sustained injuries after falling from stairs on a construction site. He alleged negligence, citing unsafe working conditions and failure to inspect the premises, particularly due to insufficient clearance on the stair platform that violated OSHA and company safety standards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Texas. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding First Texas's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and if First Texas's negligence was the proximate cause of Duncan's injuries. The court emphasized that an employee's awareness of a defect does not necessarily eliminate the employer's duty in a nonsubscriber case.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerOccupational SafetyConstruction Site InjuryHazardous ConditionForeseeabilityProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1982

People v. Nieto

This case involves an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of robbery in the second degree. The core issue on appeal was whether the People presented sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of two accomplices, Anastasio Santiago and Julio Perez, who planned and executed the robbery with the defendant. The defendant allegedly informed the accomplices about the victim's valuable jewelry and suggested a time for the robbery. The court found that the evidence relied upon by the People, including the defendant's presence at the job site, association with accomplices, a statement about the robbery time, the victim's phone call testimony, and a police detective's rebuttal testimony, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for independent corroboration under CPL 60.22. The corroborative evidence, at best, only supported the accomplices' credibility but failed to connect the defendant with the crime. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the indictment was dismissed.

Accomplice TestimonyCorroboration EvidenceRobbery Second DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceIndictment DismissedAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawImpeachment EvidenceIndependent CorroborationWitness Credibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 1994

People v. Strong

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Albany County, convicting them of rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the defendant allegedly tied up George Giametta and a woman, stole their belongings, and raped the woman. On appeal, the defendant contended that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to initial conflicting identification statements from the victims, who first identified Raymond Allen but later identified the defendant in a lineup. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the jury had ample opportunity to assess witness credibility and that its determination was not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

Criminal LawRape First DegreeRobbery First DegreeRobbery Second DegreeJury VerdictAppealIdentification TestimonyWitness CredibilityWeight of EvidenceLineup Identification
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,016 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