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

People ex rel. Johnson v. New York State Board of Parole

The petitioner, previously on parole after convictions for sodomy, rape, and robbery, faced parole revocation following allegations of new crimes and numerous parole violations. A hearing officer sustained 19 of 22 violations, leading to parole revocation. The petitioner's administrative appeal was superseded by an unannounced "Full Board Case Review" (FBCR) by the Board of Parole, which affirmed the revocation without providing the petitioner notice or an opportunity to be heard, effectively undermining his appeal rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent habeas corpus application. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the FBCR procedure was an unauthorized violation of the petitioner's due process rights and statutory right to appeal, causing irreparable harm. The court also noted significant weaknesses in the identification evidence against the petitioner and strong alibi evidence, suggesting a high probability of reversal on the merits. Consequently, the court granted the petition, discharging the petitioner from custody and restoring him to parole status.

Parole revocationDue process violationHabeas corpus reliefEyewitness identificationAlibi defenseDNA evidencePolygraph evidenceAdministrative appealUnauthorized agency reviewPreponderance of evidence
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07198 [144 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Matter of Sellers v. Stanford

Khaliyq Sellers, convicted of first-degree assault, had his parole revoked by the New York State Board of Parole after violating release conditions at a drug treatment center and during detention at Rikers Island. The violations included making verbal threats to "blow up the place" and threatening to kill everyone at Rikers Island, among other non-compliant behaviors. Sellers initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the revocation on grounds of untimeliness and due process violations, which was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court specifically found that verbal threats constituted prohibited behavior under parole rule 8, without requiring physical conduct, and that the final parole revocation hearing was timely held.

Parole RevocationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue Process RightsParole ViolationsVerbal ThreatsTimeliness of HearingAppellate DivisionAssault ConvictionCorrectional Facility Incident
References
21
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00504 [157 AD3d 1176]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2018

Matter of Gainey v. Stanford

Petitioner, Curtis L. Gainey, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board of Parole's determination revoking his parole and imposing a 24-month hold. Gainey, convicted of incest in 2001, was paroled in 2014 and subsequently charged with violating parole conditions for failing to participate in and pay for required sex offender treatment. An Administrative Law Judge and the Board of Parole sustained these charges. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that Gainey failed to comply with his parole conditions despite having the financial means and opportunities to do so. The court dismissed the petition, also noting that Gainey's challenge to the length of his time assessment became moot upon his re-release to parole supervision.

Parole revocationSex offender treatmentCPLR article 78Substantial evidenceParole violationAdministrative lawMootnessCredibility determinationAppellate reviewIncest conviction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFina v. New York State Division

The petitioner challenged the New York State Board of Parole's decision to revoke his parole, extend his supervision, and incarcerate him for 18 months, stemming from a curfew violation and charges of weapon possession and fraternization. The court found that the preliminary hearing officer abused her discretion by denying an adjournment for a defense witness and that there was no probable cause for the dangerous knife charge. Furthermore, the petitioner's guilty plea to the curfew violation was deemed involuntary and unintelligent due to the undue pressure from the unsupported weapon charge and an inadequate allocution process. The court dismissed the weapon possession and fraternization charges with prejudice, vacated the curfew violation plea, and remanded the matter for a new final parole revocation hearing.

Parole RevocationCurfew ViolationWeapon PossessionDue ProcessAdministrative DiscretionPlea ValidityAllocutionWitness RightsJudicial ReviewNew York Law
References
32
Case No. 14 Civ. 2953 (PAE)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2017

Doe v. Lima

John Doe, a paroled sex offender, and his wife, Jane Doe, sued five New York State parole officials for allegedly unconstitutionally depriving John of access to his infant son, M.S. The plaintiffs claimed violations of their substantive and procedural due process rights due to a categorical ban on contact, which forced John Doe into a homeless shelter for nearly 13 months over two periods. The Court found that the parole officials egregiously misread the parole condition and failed to conduct individualized assessments or provide prompt hearings. These actions were deemed arbitrary and violated the plaintiffs' fundamental liberty interest in familial association. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability against all five defendants.

Constitutional RightsFamilial AssociationDue ProcessParole ConditionsSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunitySex OffenderChild ContactDOCCSJudicial Review
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Kocsis & New York State Division of Parole

Petitioner Richard Kocsis, a parole officer, was suspended without pay due to misconduct. An arbitrator found him guilty and ruled for a four-month suspension, directing that all salary and benefits beyond this period be returned, except where other income was received. During his suspension, Kocsis received workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury. The arbitrator clarified that Kocsis should receive full pay minus the workers' compensation award. Respondents opposed this, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority by violating the collective bargaining agreement, which mandates leave without pay and workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the award granting back pay minus workers' compensation and remitted the matter. The Appellate Division affirmed the vacatur of the award but found the remittal unwarranted, concluding there was no issue for further consideration.

Arbitration AwardWorkers' CompensationBack PayCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic EmployeeParole OfficerMisconductAppeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. Keane

Joseph Hayden, a federal parolee, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a five-month delay in the issuance of his parole violation warrant. He contended that this delay, occurring while he served an unrelated state sentence, invalidated the warrant and prevented the tolling of his federal sentence. The court found that the Parole Commission's warrant was untimely and exceeded its statutory authority by aiming to circumvent state bail decisions. However, the court applied a harmless error analysis, concluding that Hayden suffered no actual prejudice as he would have been in the same custody position if the warrant had been issued later. Consequently, the court denied Hayden's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ruling that his federal detention was not unconstitutional or in violation of federal law.

Parole ViolationHabeas CorpusFederal SentenceState SentenceDetainerUntimely WarrantHarmless ErrorStatutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionFederalism
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,384 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