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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05204
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

People v. Martin

David Martin was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree after a jury trial. On appeal, Martin challenged his convictions, arguing violations of the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and contesting the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court found that Martin lacked standing to assert facial and as-applied challenges to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), and his arguments failed on the merits. It also determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen did not invalidate New York's entire licensing scheme or the permissive presumption under Penal Law § 265.15 (4). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent to use a loaded firearm unlawfully under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The denial of Martin's CPL 30.30 motion was also deemed proper.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond DegreeAssault Third DegreeSecond Amendment ChallengeStandingAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengePenal Law § 265.03Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of Evidence
References
17
Case No. CV-23-2140
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Zenia Martin

Claimant Zenia Martin appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her request for an extreme hardship redetermination. Martin, who sustained work injuries in 2010 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to a permanent total disability based on extreme financial hardship under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Initially granted by a WCLJ, the WCB modified the decision, finding she failed to demonstrate extreme hardship. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that substantial evidence did not support the WCB's finding, as Martin's essential monthly expenses would significantly exceed her income upon the termination of her workers' compensation benefits, making her unable to cover basic necessities. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Extreme Hardship RedeterminationPermanent Total Disability ReclassificationFinancial HardshipWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Division ReviewLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsSocial Security Disability IncomeAdoption SubsidyMonthly Expenses Deficit
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Martin (Trucking Support Servs., LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Anthony Martin, a truck driver, filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor determined he was an employee of Trucking Support Services, LLC (TSS) and Distribution Cooperative Network of NY (DCN) under the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act. TSS and DCN contested this, arguing Martin was an independent contractor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the initial determinations, finding Martin to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that TSS and DCN failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment and that the Fair Play Act was not preempted by federal law.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorCommercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play ActEmployee ClassificationLabor LawStatutory Presumption of EmploymentABC TestSeparate Business Entity TestFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActPreemption
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07503
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2020

Martin v. City of New York

Nicholas Martin sued the City of New York after sustaining personal injuries from a fall on a roadway in the Bronx, alleging the City's negligent repair work created the hazardous condition. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not receive prior written notice of the defect as required by the Pothole Law. Martin contended that prior written notice was not necessary because the City's affirmative act of negligence caused the defect. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the City's repair work immediately created the dangerous condition. Consequently, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the City and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryRoadway DefectMunicipal LiabilityPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBronx CountySlip and FallCity of New York
References
13
Case No. 2013-1699 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

People v. Martin (Gregory)

Gregory Martin appealed two judgments from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, for attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, based on violations of an order of protection. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction related to conduct between July 19-22, 2011, finding sufficient legal evidence. However, the judgment for conduct on September 23, 2011, was reversed and dismissed because the verdict was deemed against the weight of the evidence due to witness testimony discrepancies. The court also upheld the amendment of the date in the prosecutor's information, citing CPL 100.45 (2) and 200.70.

Criminal ContemptOrder of ProtectionAttempted Criminal ContemptSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewAmendment of Accusatory InstrumentRosario PacketProsecutor's InformationWitness Testimony
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08589 [156 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Matter of Martins v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Fred Martins, a state trooper, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for two separate knee injuries sustained in November 2012 and July 2013. The first occurred while playing basketball during training, and the second from tripping on a tile at a dimly lit dispatch center. Respondent Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, denied both applications, concluding that neither incident constituted an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence that the injuries resulted from risks that could have been reasonably anticipated or were due to the petitioner's own misstep, and thus were not accidental injuries within the meaning of the law. The court noted that injuries from activities in ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event, or from readily observable and anticipated conditions, do not qualify as accidental.

Accidental Disability RetirementState TrooperKnee InjuryTrip and FallBasketball InjuryAnticipated RiskOrdinary EmploymentCPLR Article 78Disability BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin-Trigona v. D'Amato & Lynch

Plaintiff Martin-Trigona filed a suit against attorneys D’Amato & Lynch and Richard Belford under RICO statutes, the Fifth Amendment, and state law, alleging misconduct for providing limited legal assistance to pro se defendants in a state court action. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their actions did not constitute fraud or a pattern of racketeering. The court found that the limited assistance provided by the attorneys to the pro se litigants was proper and did not violate mail fraud, wire fraud, or the Hobbs Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendants' actions were private and did not involve governmental action, thus not violating the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal and pendent state law claims.

RICOSummary JudgmentPro Se AssistanceMail FraudWire FraudHobbs ActFifth AmendmentDue ProcessPendent ClaimsLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. CV-23-0805
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Martin Lleshaj

Claimant Martin Lleshaj, a New York resident and truck driver for an Illinois company, was injured in Pennsylvania and filed a workers' compensation claim in New York. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found sufficient contacts to establish New York jurisdiction, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, dismissing the claim due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of insufficient contacts between claimant's employment and New York, despite his residency and remote application from the state, as the employer had no New York offices and evidence of significant New York-based work was lacking.

Workers' Compensation JurisdictionOut-of-State Injury ClaimSubject Matter JurisdictionInterstate Employment ContactsAppellate Division ReviewEmployer's Business NexusRemote Hiring ImpactTrucking Industry ClaimNew York Workers' Compensation BoardInsufficient Jurisdictional Contacts
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larkin v. Martin

Lisa Larkin, a secretary at the New York State Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER), sued her supervisor Richard Martin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for sexual harassment. A jury found Martin sexually harassed Larkin but concluded that he had not done so under color of state law, leading to a judgment for the defendant. Larkin subsequently filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial. The Court reviewed the issue of whether Martin acted under color of state law, acknowledging the personal relationship that evolved into an abusive one where Martin leveraged his supervisory authority. The Court determined that the jury's verdict on the 'color of state law' issue was seriously erroneous and granted Larkin's motion for a new trial, setting aside the original verdict.

sexual harassment42 U.S.C. § 1983supervisor misconductcolor of state lawpost-trial motionnew trial grantedjury verdictemployment lawworkplace harassmentabuse of authority
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. SCI Management L.P.

The plaintiff, Rita Martin, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employers, SCI Management L.P. and SCI Funeral Services of New York, Inc., and her former supervisor, Peter D’Arienzo. The lawsuit alleged violations of Title VII, FMLA, FLSA, and New York and Westchester County Human Rights Laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the plaintiff's employment contract. The court granted the defendants' motion, compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint without prejudice, after rejecting the plaintiff's arguments regarding the unenforceability of the arbitration agreement due to concerns about costs, discovery limitations, and the availability of punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationArbitration AgreementTitle VIIFMLAFLSANew York Human Rights LawWestchester County Human Rights LawFederal Arbitration ActMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 275 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