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. Previl

This case addresses the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument charging defendant Anthony Previl, operating L’Eternal Qui est Dieu Restaurant, with violating Workers’ Compensation Law sections 50 and 52 for failing to secure insurance for employee Admarie Baskin. Previl sought to dismiss the complaint, contending it was an unconverted misdemeanor complaint based on hearsay. The People argued that a certified New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) decision, attached to the instrument, satisfied the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40. The court ruled that certified state department records, including WCB decisions, are admissible under CPLR 2307 and 4518 (c) as prima facie evidence of their contents, regardless of whether hearsay was considered by the WCB Judge. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, affirming the legal sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

Workers' Compensation LawAccusatory InstrumentMisdemeanorHearsay EvidenceMotion to DismissCPL 100.40CPLR 4518Certified RecordsBusiness Records ExceptionUninsured Employer
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. J.A.

This case addresses the extent to which a psychiatrist can rely on out-of-court materials, such as presentence reports and parole records, to establish a history of sex offenses for a "mental abnormality" diagnosis in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The petitioner's expert psychiatrist diagnosed respondent Mr. A. with pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., and antisocial personality disorder, relying on various criminal history documents. The diagnosis of pedophilia specifically hinged on two 1961 incidents, whose underlying facts were challenged by the respondent as unreliable hearsay. The court analyzed the professional reliability and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding that documents supporting 1980 and 1992 convictions were reliable due to corroboration. However, the reports for the 1961 convictions were deemed unreliable, lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, contemporaneity, and unchallengeable contents. Consequently, the court disregarded and excluded the expert's conclusion of pedophilia, as it was solely based on these unreliable hearsay documents, while affirming the reliance on other, more reliable evidence.

Mental Hygiene Law Article 10Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA)Expert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceProfessional Reliability ExceptionBusiness Records ExceptionPsychiatric DiagnosisPedophiliaPresentence ReportsParole Records
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1989

Albert G. v. Denise B.

This case involved a father's petition to terminate the mother's visitation rights with their 8-year-old child, leading to an order for supervised visitation. The child, born out of wedlock in 1983, made allegations in 1988 that his mother used cocaine in his presence. The Family Court admitted hearsay testimony from witnesses regarding these allegations, citing Family Court Act § 1046 as an exception for abuse and neglect cases. The mother appealed, arguing the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding the testimony properly received and corroboration present.

Family Court ActChild Visitation RightsTermination of Parental RightsChild Abuse AllegationsHearsay ExceptionSupervised VisitationOut-of-Wedlock ChildCustody DisputeParental ConductCocaine Use Allegations
References
3
Case No. 570558/19
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2019

Prasad v. Spodek

This case involves an appeal by Todd Spodek, Esq. from a Civil Court judgment affirming an arbitration award in favor of Sunita Prasad. Spodek sought to vacate the award, arguing it was untimely and that the arbitrator improperly excluded his paralegal's hearsay testimony. The Appellate Term found Spodek's application was not untimely but denied it on the merits. The Court held that the arbitrator's refusal to consider the paralegal's hearsay testimony, which was based on conversations with Spodek and lacked competence to prove fee reasonableness, did not constitute misconduct. Spodek had alternative means to present evidence, such as testifying himself or submitting written declarations.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardHearsay EvidenceParalegal TestimonyArbitrator MisconductCPLR 7511Fee DisputeAppellate TermBurden of ProofReasonableness of Fee
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This case, presided over by Justice Paula J. Hepner, addresses the admissibility of out-of-court hearsay statements made by a child in a motion to modify an existing joint custody order. The petitioner sought to introduce such statements through witness testimony, which the respondent objected to. The court examined existing case law, noting that while the 'traditional requirements of the adversary system' may be relaxed in custody cases, there is no specific statutory or judicial exception for admitting a child's hearsay statements in custody proceedings unless the allegations are based on abuse or neglect. The court distinguished this case from those involving abuse or neglect, aligning with Ponzini v Ponzini, and ruled that since the modification petition does not allege abuse or neglect, the child's out-of-court statements are not admissible.

CustodyHearsay EvidenceChild StatementsFamily LawModification of CustodyAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse and NeglectFamily Court ActJoint CustodyJudicial Precedent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Lawrence Nursing Home

The decedent, a pot washer for Lawrence Nursing Home, was found stabbed to death on the employer's premises during his work shift. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially disallowed the claim for death benefits, concluding the death resulted from a personal act unrelated to his work activities, thereby overcoming the Section 21 presumption that an accident in the course of employment arose out of employment. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence used by the board to overcome the presumption was uncorroborated hearsay. However, the appellate court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that the weight of the hearsay testimony and the reasonable inferences drawn from the circumstances were within the board's fact-finding province, providing substantial evidence for the disallowance. Consequently, the Board's disallowance of death benefits was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising out of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidencePersonal ActEmployer PremisesManslaughter
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Koretta W.

The respondent moved to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition, which charged arson, arguing it was defective due to hearsay and seeking to suppress statements based on the social-worker/client privilege (CPLR 4508). Judge Sara P. Schechter denied the dismissal motion, finding the petition not defective. While two supporting depositions were struck due to inadmissible hearsay, two others detailing conversations between social workers and the respondent were deemed admissible as admissions and not violative of CPLR 4508. The court balanced the privilege against strong public interests, including the truth-seeking function and the proper functioning of the child care system, ultimately overriding the privilege. The motion to suppress the statements was also denied because the respondent did not claim the statements were involuntarily made.

juvenile delinquencyarson chargessocial worker privilegeCPLR 4508admissibility of statementshearsay evidencesuppression of evidencechild protective servicesconfidentiality balancingchild care system
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04839
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Of Doe 44 v. Erik P.R.

Plaintiffs, including Of Doe 44, initiated actions under the Child Victims Act against Erik P.R. for alleged sexual abuse. They sought partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that a prior Family Court Act article 10 proceeding collaterally estopped the defendant. The Supreme Court granted this motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision and denied the motion. The majority opinion held that collateral estoppel should not apply because the prior Family Court proceeding relied heavily on hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible in the civil actions, despite having the same burden of proof. Justice Bannister dissented, arguing that the conditions for collateral estoppel were met, as the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding, and the hearsay evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

Child Victims ActSexual Abuse AllegationsCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActHearsay EvidenceBurden of ProofPrior ProceedingsIdentity of Issue
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laguesse v. Storytown U.S.A., Inc.

Terry L. Laguesse and her husband sued Great Escape for personal injuries sustained when a grate fell on Ms. Laguesse at the amusement park. Following a jury award in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants appealed, arguing improper admission of hearsay evidence and an erroneous jury charge regarding prior accidents. The appellate court found that while the hearsay was improperly admitted, it was harmless error due to cumulative expert testimony establishing the defendant's constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court also upheld the lower court's refusal to charge on prior accidents, citing evidence of past failures, and affirmed the damages award for future pain and suffering as not excessive given the plaintiff's injuries and need for potential future surgeries. Therefore, the judgment and order were affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityHearsay EvidenceSpontaneous DeclarationParty AdmissionsHarmless ErrorNotice of Dangerous ConditionPrior AccidentsExcessive DamagesFuture Pain and Suffering
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gram v. Acands, Inc.

Plaintiff Borucki presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that her decedent was partially disabled due to an asbestos-related condition, and the trial court's instructions on proximate cause were adequate. The court found that the plaintiffs' counsel's summation comments did not warrant reversal, as they were either not objected to, within fair comment, or adequately addressed by curative action. The trial court properly allowed expert opinion from a defense witness during cross-examination and precluded defendant Keene from introducing codefendants' interrogatory answers as hearsay. Additionally, The Asbestos Workers Magazine materials were deemed hearsay and correctly excluded. Finally, the court appropriately denied plaintiff Gram's post-trial motion to set aside a portion of the verdict apportioning liability, as it was consistent with a previous court order.

Asbestos-related conditionPartial disabilityProximate causeJury verdictCounsel summationMistrial motionExpert testimonyHearsay evidenceInterrogatory preclusionLiability apportionment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 116 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