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

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

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. 10 Civ. 0699
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. City of New York

This Opinion & Order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses the admissibility of 'decline to prosecute' (DP) forms in a class action against the City of New York. Plaintiffs sought to use these forms as evidence of the NYPD's alleged unconstitutional trespass stops and arrests in NYCHA buildings for class certification and trial. The City argued against their admission as hearsay and legal conclusions. The Court ruled the DP forms admissible, primarily under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)), and found arresting officers' statements admissible as party-opponent admissions. The decision emphasized the forms' probative value and the lack of alternative evidence, despite concerns about implied legal conclusions, given the unique context of a class action challenging systemic practices.

Admissibility of EvidenceHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsPolice PracticesTrespass ArrestsNYCHA BuildingsClass ActionFederal Rules of EvidenceProbable CauseLegal Conclusions
References
28
Case No. 2005 NY Slip Op 25220
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2005

Matter of Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This Family Court case addresses the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements in a custody modification proceeding. Petitioner Jacqueline B. sought to modify an existing joint custody order with respondent Peter K. The central question was whether the child's hearsay statements, relating to issues like communication problems and incompatible parenting styles—but not allegations of abuse or neglect—could be admitted into evidence. Presiding Justice Paula J. Hepner reviewed established case law, including _Ponzini v Ponzini_, and concluded that without specific allegations of abuse or neglect, hearsay statements from a child are inadmissible in custody proceedings under Article 6 of the Family Court Act. The court distinguished this scenario from child protective proceedings where such exceptions might apply and ruled that the child's statements were not admissible.

Custody ModificationHearsay AdmissibilityChild Witness StatementsFamily Court ProceedingsEvidentiary RulesParental RightsAbuse and Neglect AllegationsDue ProcessJoint CustodyLaw Guardian Role
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dolan

This contested special proceeding, commenced under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, sought the continuation of an assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) order for respondent Joan W. The court addressed three primary issues: the admissibility of hearsay statements from non-parties in hospital records, a motion to quash a subpoena for the respondent’s expert witness's notes, and the continuation of the AOT plan. The court ruled that hearsay statements relevant to diagnosis and treatment are admissible under the business records exception, extending the People v Ortega holding to Mental Hygiene Law hearings. Additionally, the motion to quash the subpoena for the expert’s notes was denied, as the respondent waived privilege by placing her condition in controversy. Ultimately, with the respondent's consent, the court granted the continuation of the AOT order for one year, retroactive to September 23, 2011.

Assisted Outpatient TreatmentMental Hygiene LawHearsay AdmissibilityBusiness Records ExceptionHospital RecordsMedical Diagnosis and TreatmentSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeSubpoena QuashalKendra's Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

50 Lefferts LLC v. Cole

This case involves a holdover proceeding initiated by a petitioner landlord against Shaniquca Cole, who claims succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment after the death of the tenant of record, Thelma Williams, on June 10, 2013. Cole asserts she was a member of Williams' immediate family and that the apartment was their primary residence for two years prior to Williams' death. The core issue is the admissibility of Williams' hospital records, offered by the petitioner, which contain statements from which adverse inferences about Cole's residency could be drawn. Respondent objected to these records as hearsay, but the court, referencing relevant case law, ruled that discharge planning statements within hospital records are admissible as part of a patient's treatment. The court denied the respondent's motion to bar the evidence, emphasizing that admissibility does not equate to probative weight.

Holdover proceedingSuccession rightsRent stabilizationHospital recordsHearsay exceptionBusiness recordsDischarge planMedical evidencePrimary residenceTenant rights
References
7
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

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. United States

Petitioners, including Steven Baker, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate their 1977 convictions for federal narcotics and firearms laws. The petition alleged jury tampering by co-defendant Guy Fisher, who reportedly bribed a juror during their original trial. Despite undertaking joint discovery with the government, the petitioners failed to produce admissible evidence to substantiate the claim beyond hearsay statements. Presiding District Judge Whitman Knapp determined that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted due to the absence of admissible evidence, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Habeas CorpusJury TamperingJury BriberyEvidentiary Hearing28 U.S.C. § 2255Federal Narcotics LawsFederal Firearms LawsDismissal of PetitionHearsay EvidenceAdmissible Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blake v. City of New York

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an action for damages brought by infant plaintiff Franklyn Blake and his mother Sandra Blake against the City of New York. The plaintiffs sought damages after a fire severely burned Franklyn, alleging the city failed to provide promised police protection following prior incidents. The dissenting judge argues that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered due to the improper admission of prejudicial hearsay testimony from a neighbor. This testimony, regarding police promises of protection, improperly bolstered the plaintiffs' claims, especially given the conflicting testimonies of the plaintiffs and police officers. The dissent highlights that this trial error, specifically the admission of incompetent evidence, warrants reversal.

Hearsay TestimonyPrejudicial EvidenceSpecial RelationshipMunicipal LiabilityPolice ProtectionTrial ErrorAppellate ReviewCPLR 4017Credibility of WitnessesDamages Action
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 707 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