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. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1998

People v. Butler

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree for participating in the theft of personal items from a woman in Albany. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging two showup identifications as unduly suggestive and claiming the victim's intoxication rendered the identification procedure suggestive. The court found that the showup identifications were conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and were not suggestive. Furthermore, the court rejected the claim that the victim's intoxication made the procedure unduly suggestive, noting it was a point for cross-examination at trial. The court also dismissed the defendant's claim regarding being unadvised of grand jury proceedings, stating the motion was untimely and the People had satisfied their burden by timely notifying the defendant's attorney. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

RobberySecond Degree RobberyShowup IdentificationGrand Jury ProceedingsAdmissibility of EvidenceDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawAlbanyAppealWitness Identification
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Jones

The defendant appealed a conviction for robbery in the first and second degrees in Kings County. The appeal challenged the denial of a motion to suppress complainant's identification testimony, arguing the pretrial procedures were suggestive and the complainant should have testified at the hearing. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the defendant failed to establish the identification procedures were unfair and properly denied the request for adjournment. The court also rejected a renewed suppression motion made during trial regarding a detective's alleged suggestive comment, noting no prejudice occurred as the defendant exchanged clothing with a stand-in. Additionally, the court found the sentence was not excessive and other objections lacked merit.

RobberyFirst Degree RobberySecond Degree RobberyIdentification TestimonySuppression MotionPhoto ArrayCorporeal LineupDue ProcessExcessive SentenceCriminal Appeal
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02649 [162 AD3d 25]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2018

People v. Hargrove

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order to vacate Rosean Hargrove's judgment of conviction for murder and assault and grant a new trial. The Supreme Court's decision was based on newly discovered evidence revealing a pattern of police misconduct by Detective Louis Scarcella, who was instrumental in obtaining the sole identification testimony against Hargrove. The Appellate Division found that this evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in the initial police investigation and the handling of forensic evidence, created a probability of a more favorable verdict for the defendant at a new trial. The court emphasized that the People's case was exceptionally weak, relying solely on Crosson's identification, which was problematic given the detective's documented history of facilitating false identification testimony and the questionable circumstances surrounding the identification procedures.

Criminal Justice SystemPolice MisconductFalse IdentificationNewly Discovered EvidenceCPL 440.10Due ProcessWitness CredibilitySuppression HearingConviction Integrity UnitForensic Evidence
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1989

People v. Acosta

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of robbery in the first degree, stemming from two separate incidents at a cosmetics store where he displayed a weapon. The convictions were based on jury trial findings and guilty pleas, leading to a sentence as a violent predicate felon. Key evidence included a latent fingerprint recovered from the crime scene and eyewitness identifications by store employees. On appeal, the defendant challenged the suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures, but the court found these arguments without merit. The judgments of conviction were unanimously affirmed, with the court noting strong identification testimony and fingerprint evidence.

Robbery First DegreeViolent Predicate FelonJury TrialGuilty PleaFingerprint EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationPhotographic IdentificationLineup IdentificationIdentification ProcedureAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Schipski

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of burglary in the third degree following a guilty plea. The appeal primarily challenged the denial of motions to suppress a statement made to the police and identification testimony. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the police officer's question, asked through a window during an ongoing burglary, did not constitute a Miranda-requiring interrogation but was for safety. Furthermore, the court found no police-arranged identification procedure, thus upholding the refusal to suppress the identification testimony. Lastly, the court determined that the defendant forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment by pleading guilty.

BurglaryMiranda RightsSuppression HearingIdentification TestimonyGuilty PleaAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentDue ProcessConfession Admissibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Green

On January 11, 1990, Sun Ok Kim was assaulted, robbed, and subjected to an attempted burglary. Two weeks later, she identified Kenneth Green in a police lineup. Green subsequently filed a motion to suppress the identification testimony, citing both suggestive lineup procedures and the scientific unreliability of eyewitness identification. The court considered expert testimony regarding the factors affecting eyewitness accuracy, including witness confidence and stress levels, but found no evidence of suggestiveness in the police's conduct. Ultimately, the court denied Green's motion in its entirety, ruling that the scientific arguments related to the weight of the identification evidence, not its admissibility, which remains a question for the jury.

Eyewitness IdentificationSuppression MotionDue ProcessSuggestive LineupScientific ReliabilityYerkes-Dodson LawCriminal ProcedureAdmissibility of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHuman Perception
References
4
Case No. Dkt. # 1, 41
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Poole

Petitioner Frederick Walker filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2000 conviction for robbery and assault in Monroe County. He alleged improper show-up identification procedures and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court addressed four grounds: the suggestiveness of two show-up procedures, insufficient evidence for attempted robbery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the claim regarding the second show-up on the merits, found the claims concerning the first show-up and evidentiary sufficiency to be procedurally defaulted, and dismissed the ineffective assistance claims for lack of deficient performance or prejudice. Consequently, Walker's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and his petitions dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselShow-up IdentificationDue ProcessRobberyAssaultAttempted RobberyProcedural DefaultExhaustion of State RemediesState Conviction Challenge
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salinas v. State

The defendant, Minnie Safi-nas, appealed her murder conviction and fifty-year sentence for the killing of Velia Guevara. She challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, improper identification methods, suppression of alibi evidence, and constitutional violations in sentencing. The court found sufficient evidence, including circumstantial evidence linking Safi-nas to the murder through her affair with the victim's husband, suspicious car rentals, and altered medical records. The court also rejected claims of impermissibly suggestive identification procedures and affirmed the admission of alibi evidence, noting the defendant waived objections regarding the jury's visit to a cathedral. Ultimately, all issues on appeal were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Murder convictionSufficiency of evidenceCircumstantial evidenceIdentification proceduresAlibi evidenceSentencing violationsJury conductAppellate reviewCriminal lawDue process
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,510 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