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

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1949

United States v. Foster

Defendants indicted for conspiracy to overthrow the government challenged the jury selection process in the Southern District of New York. They alleged systematic exclusion of the poor, minorities, women, and political affiliates, arguing that property qualifications and low juror fees were unconstitutional. Judge Medina conducted a six-week trial, reviewing extensive evidence from 1940-1949 jury records and witness testimonies. The court found no deliberate, willful, or systematic discrimination, concluding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge overruled the challenge and denied all motions, emphasizing the broad discretion in jury selection and rejecting the concept of proportional representation for jury lists.

Jury selection challengeSystematic exclusionJury discriminationEconomic statusRacial minoritiesWomen's rightsPolitical affiliationGrand jury panelPetit jury venireConstitutional challenge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gajadhar

Defendant Winston Gajadhar was tried before a 12-member jury. During deliberations, a juror became ill, and defendant, opposing a mistrial, waived his right to a 12-person jury, requesting that deliberations continue with the remaining 11 jurors. The Supreme Court granted this request, and Gajadhar was convicted of attempted robbery and felony murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the state constitution does not permit a defendant to consent to a jury of less than 12 members. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that article I, section 2 of the state constitution, as amended in 1938, allows a noncapital criminal defendant to waive the right to a 12-person jury and consent to deliberations by 11 jurors under proper circumstances, provided the waiver is made in writing and in open court.

Jury WaiverEleven-Member JuryCriminal Procedure LawConstitutional LawJury DeliberationsTrial by JuryFelony MurderAttempted RobberyAppellate ReviewJury Substitution
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

In this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the court addresses motions filed by defendants Daniel Senkowski and William Costello following a jury verdict that awarded nominal damages of one dollar against them. The case originated from an incident on August 21, 1991, at Clinton Correctional Facility, where inmate Frederick Matthews was stabbed by another inmate, Aaron Breaziel, while both were in involuntary protective custody. Matthews's widow continued the action after his death from unrelated causes in 1994. Defendants sought to amend the judgment to remove David B. Armitage, for whom the jury found no liability, and for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The court granted the motion to amend the judgment, deleting the entry against Armitage. Furthermore, the court granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Matthews's safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment claim. Additionally, the court found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident in 1991, the legal standard for deliberate indifference regarding an inmate's general propensity for violence was not clearly established in the Second Circuit.

Eighth AmendmentPrisoner RightsFailure to ProtectDeliberate IndifferenceQualified ImmunityJudgment as a Matter of LawFed.R.Civ.P. 50(b)Inmate AssaultClinton Correctional FacilityCorrectional Services
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal regarding a jury's finding that plaintiff Pedro Pena was not a special employee of the defendant, following an accident resulting in personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, had previously set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the jury verdict, thereby upholding the jury's original finding. Additionally, the defendant's cross-appeal for judgment as a matter of law was denied. The court emphasized that determining a special employment relationship is a question of fact for the jury, with several factors to consider. Ultimately, costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, affirming the jury's initial determination.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury DamagesEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityQuestion of FactTrial Court ReversalCosts Awarded
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Application of United Electrical, Radio & M. Workers

This case addresses a motion to expunge a Grand Jury's "presentment" from court records and to remove its members from jury rolls due to alleged misconduct. The petitioners, including the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America and the American Communications Association, argued the presentment violated grand jury secrecy, exceeded jurisdictional bounds, and infringed upon religious freedoms. The Grand Jury's report, concerning non-Communist affidavits filed by union officials, was widely disseminated and prompted the National Labor Relations Board to take actions against the unions, which were later judicially enjoined. District Judge Weinfeld ruled that the Grand Jury indeed overstepped its authority by issuing a condemnatory report without an indictment and breached secrecy protocols, specifically noting the improper public disclosure of union officials' names. The court also highlighted the inappropriateness of the Grand Jury's inquiries into witnesses' religious beliefs. Consequently, the judge granted the motion to expunge the controversial report but denied the request to strike the jurors' names, acknowledging their belief in acting within their authority.

Grand Jury PowersPresentment ExpungementJudicial ReviewSeparation of PowersFirst Amendment RightsFifth Amendment PrivilegeLabor LawTaft-Hartley ActNon-Communist AffidavitsFreedom of Religion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marathon Oil Co. v. Sterner

James E. Sterner, an independent contractor's employee, was awarded $25,000 for personal injuries sustained on Marathon Oil Company's premises due to gas exposure. Marathon appealed the judgment, arguing a lack of evidence for negligence and improper jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur. The jury found Marathon negligent and its negligence proximately caused Sterner's injuries. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the jury was entitled to conclude negligence based on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, as the accident would not ordinarily happen absent negligence and the instrumentality was under Marathon's control. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturAppellate LawJury VerdictProximate CausePremises LiabilityIndependent Contractor LiabilityWorkplace AccidentGas Exposure Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,606 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