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
Apr 19, 2013

Lieberman v. Lieberman

The plaintiff in a matrimonial action appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The first order denied her motion for a new forensic evaluation by a mental health professional from the Appellate Division's directory, and the second denied her motion for a mistrial pursuant to CPLR 4402. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding no improvident exercise of discretion by the trial court. The court noted the protracted nature of the proceedings, the welfare of the children, and the delay in making the mistrial motion. Additionally, a motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeals was denied.

matrimonial actionforensic evaluationmental health professionalcustody and visitationmistrialappellate reviewjudicial discretionCPLR 440222 NYCRR ruleschildren's welfare
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05458
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2017

People v. Guillaume

The People appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, that dismissed an indictment against Eddy Guillaume following a mistrial. Guillaume was charged with various sexual offenses against a four-year-old child. The mistrial was granted after the prosecutor belatedly revealed information regarding the child's mother's own history of sexual abuse, which the Supreme Court deemed relevant for impeachment. The Appellate Division determined that this information did not constitute 'Rosario material' and, even if it did, dismissal of the indictment was an improper remedy. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, reinstated the indictment, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Criminal Sexual ActSexual AbuseEndangering Welfare of a ChildMistrialIndictment DismissalRosario RuleProsecutorial DisclosureWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewRemand for Further Proceedings
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bassett

The defendant appealed a judgment from Supreme Court, Erie County, convicting him of two counts of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant contended that the court erred in failing to examine remaining jurors individually after a discharged juror made certain disclosures, and in denying his motion for a mistrial. The Appellate Division found the court's inquiry sufficient and the denial of a mistrial not an abuse of discretion. The defendant also argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to the victim's testimony being incredible, which the court rejected, noting corroboration and deferring to the jury's credibility assessment. Further contentions regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence, the denial of access to victim's counseling records, and ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected by the court. The judgment was unanimously affirmed, with a note to amend the certificate of conviction to reflect the correct charges.

Sexual Conduct Against ChildEndangering Welfare of ChildJury DeliberationJuror ImpartialityMistrial MotionWeight of EvidenceVictim Testimony CredibilityPrior Bad Acts EvidenceChild Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)Expert Testimony
References
38
Case No. ADJ979897 (POM 0248276)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

JITENDRAKUMAR TRIVEDI vs. GTE CORPORATION, LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition to disqualify Judge C. Coutts and declare a mistrial. The applicant's request, treated as a disqualification petition, failed to comply with Labor Code section 5311 and WCAB Rule 10452 by not stating specific grounds or providing a supporting declaration. The Board found the applicant had not shown good cause to reopen his case in prior proceedings and had not demonstrated any valid reason for the current disqualification request.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualificationPetition for DisqualificationMistrialLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Presiding Workers' Compensation JudgeFindings of Fact and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationWrit of Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1982

People v. McIntyre

A defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 10, 1982, convicting him of robbery. During jury deliberations, a juror recognized the defendant's sister but assured impartiality, leading the court to deny a mistrial. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no reason to disturb the trial court's decision regarding the juror's qualification under CPL 270.35. The court also declined to review an unpreserved challenge concerning the juror questioning method.

RobberyJury DeliberationsJuror ImpartialityMistrial MotionAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawJudgment AffirmedJuror DisqualificationCo-worker Recognition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1987

People v. Woods

Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the second degree after a jury trial. During the robbery, he pointed what appeared to be a gun at the complainant, taking his watch. Office workers intervened, detaining him until police arrived, where he was found with two imitation guns. The court admitted the recovered watch despite late disclosure, denying a mistrial, and allowed questioning on prior felony facts after the defendant "opened the door". The jury instruction on reasonable doubt was found proper, and the sentence was not deemed unduly harsh.

RobberyCriminal ConvictionJury TrialSentencingSecond Violent Felony OffenderEvidence AdmissibilityMistrialCross-ExaminationSandoval RulingReasonable Doubt
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1989

Bubnell v. Holmes Ambulance Service Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had declared a mistrial and referred the workers' compensation defense to the Workers' Compensation Board. The core issue on appeal was whether the defendant was an alter ego of the plaintiffs' employer, thereby being immune from a personal injury suit under workers' compensation law. While acknowledging that mixed questions of law and fact regarding workers' compensation are typically remitted to the Board, the appellate court found it an improvident exercise of discretion to further delay a long-standing case for the Board's determination of an issue readily resolvable by the trial court. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

personal injuryworkers' compensation defensealter ego doctrinemistrialappellate reversalremittaljudicial discretionmixed question of law and factlitigation delaytrial proceedings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bermejo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The plaintiff's attorney secretly videotaped an Independent Medical Examination (IME) and revealed it at trial, causing a mistrial. The trial judge, Justice Duane A. Hart, accused the defendant's orthopedist of perjury and threatened his career. On appeal, the court found the attorney's secret recording and non-disclosure a violation of CPLR 3101(i) and deemed the conduct frivolous. The appellate court also determined that the orthopedist did not lie and that the trial judge's intimidation made him unavailable as an expert witness. The court reversed the trial court's decision, granting the defendants a new IME and ordering the plaintiff's counsel to pay the defendants' costs. The case was remitted to a different Justice for further proceedings.

Personal injuryIndependent Medical ExaminationVideotaping IMEDiscovery rulesAttorney misconductMistrialPerjury allegationsJudicial biasAppellate procedureSanctions
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Griswold

Defendant Griswold was convicted of murder in the second degree and arson after a retrial on a felony murder count where the initial jury had been unable to agree. Griswold appealed, contending that the retrial violated double jeopardy and that incriminating statements made to police were admitted in contravention of his right to counsel. The court affirmed the trial court's discretion in declaring a mistrial, thus rejecting the double jeopardy claim. However, applying recent precedents from People v Cunningham and People v Pepper retroactively, the court found that the jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of Griswold's statements was prejudicially incorrect, as it did not require a prior determination of whether he had requested counsel. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Murder in the second degreeFelony murderArsonDouble JeopardyRight to CounselMiranda warningsCustodial interrogationRetroactive application of lawNew trial
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 16 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