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

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
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. ADJ6822166
Regular
May 27, 2011

Jackie Thompson vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that a school district police officer was entitled to a cancer presumption for his prostate cancer. The Board found that while the applicant was a peace officer, his authority was defined by Penal Code section 830.32, not section 830.1 as initially determined. Because Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption specifically lists peace officers defined under certain Penal Code sections and does not include those under 830.32, the applicant is not entitled to the presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1Penal Code 830.32Peace OfficerSchool District Police OfficerCancer PresumptionIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWCABLaw Enforcement ActivitiesWilliam Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Powell

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's felony conviction for possessing a loaded firearm in the lobby of a men's shelter. The defendant argued the shelter constituted his 'home,' which would reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. The trial judge's instruction defined 'home' as not encompassing a 'public place' and referenced the Penal Law's definition of such. The Court of Appeals found the instruction proper, emphasizing that the shelter lobby, accessible to hundreds daily and the general public, lacked the requisite privacy to be considered a 'home' under the firearm possession statute. The ruling clarified the interpretation of 'home' in Penal Law § 265.02, distinguishing between private residential areas and publicly accessible common areas.

Gun ControlFirearm PossessionCriminal LawStatutory InterpretationDefinition of HomePublic PlaceJury InstructionsFelony vs. MisdemeanorAppellate ReviewMen's Shelter
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Marian

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's stalking statute. The defendant was charged with stalking her former girlfriend by sending numerous messages, including to a work email address, and appearing unannounced at various locations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), ruling that a person's work email address is not considered a "place of employment or business" as defined by the statute. Additionally, the court found other pleading defects for this specific count. However, the motion to dismiss the remaining charges, including falsely reporting an incident and stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (2), was denied as these counts were deemed facially sufficient.

StalkingEmail StalkingPenal LawFacial SufficiencyStatutory InterpretationPlace of EmploymentCriminal Procedure LawMisdemeanorFormer GirlfriendHarassment
References
17
Case No. 2015-1796 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

People v. Rivas (Mayra)

This case concerns an appeal by Mayra Rivas from her convictions for stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the first degree. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the facial sufficiency of the superseding accusatory instrument and the weight of the trial evidence. The court reversed and dismissed the conviction for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), finding the accusatory instrument facially insufficient as it lacked objective facts to establish a reasonable fear of employment loss. However, the convictions for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (1) and harassment in the first degree were affirmed, as the court determined that the extensive allegations supported a finding of a course of conduct intended to cause reasonable fear for personal safety, beyond mere protected speech.

StalkingHarassmentCriminal LawAppellate ReviewFacial InsufficiencySufficiency of EvidencePenal LawCriminal Procedure LawFirst AmendmentFree Speech
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Chapman

The People charged the defendant with burglary in the third degree after he allegedly unlawfully entered two railway boxcars and stole property. The central legal issue is whether a railway boxcar constitutes a "building" under Penal Law § 140.00 (2). The court reviewed the extensive legislative history of the "building" definition, noting that "railway cars" were previously explicitly included but intentionally removed in the 1965 Penal Law revision and not reinserted in subsequent amendments. Despite arguments that boxcars could be considered "structures" or used for "carrying on business therein," the court found that such an interpretation would contradict clear legislative intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the burglary charges, concluding that the unlawful entry into the boxcars did not meet the statutory definition of burglary.

BurglaryStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentPenal LawRailway CarBoxcarDefinition of BuildingCriminal LawGrand Jury MinutesDismissal of Charges
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rental & Management Associates, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance

The plaintiff, a property manager, sought insurance indemnification from Hartford Insurance Company for a portion of a judgment related to an illegal eviction under RPAPL 853. Hartford had defended the plaintiff in the original action but refused to cover the treble damages component, citing public policy against indemnification for penalties. The court analyzed whether RPAPL 853 treble damages, which are penal in nature, are subject to the same public policy bar as punitive damages, despite differing intent requirements. The decision concluded that public policy indeed prohibits insurance indemnification for the penal two-thirds of RPAPL 853 awards, intended to punish and deter, but allows for the compensatory one-third. Consequently, both parties' motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part, aligning with this distinction.

Illegal EvictionTreble DamagesRPAPL 853Insurance IndemnificationPublic PolicyPunitive DamagesSummary JudgmentLandlord-Tenant LawPenal DamagesCompensatory Damages
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dylan C.

This case addresses whether absconding from a nonsecure detention facility for alleged and adjudicated juvenile delinquents constitutes escape in the second degree under Penal Law § 205.10. Dylan C., a 15-year-old, was remanded to a nonsecure facility and subsequently absconded. A delinquency petition was filed, which the Family Court dismissed, ruling that a nonsecure facility is not a 'detention facility' within the meaning of the escape statute. The presentment agency appealed. The court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that nonsecure detention facilities, which emerged after the enactment of Penal Law § 205.10 in 1965, do not fall within the statute's intended scope, which contemplated secure facilities focused on confinement. The court emphasized the rehabilitative purpose of nonsecure facilities and cited precedent from similar cases involving psychiatric patients and PINS children.

Juvenile DelinquencyEscapeNonsecure Detention FacilityPenal Law § 205.10Family Court ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentRehabilitationConfinementPublic Safety
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fern v. International Business Machines Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee since 1960, attended law school from 1981 to 1985. His request for tuition reimbursement was denied, despite learning a colleague received it, leading him to suspect racial, gender, and age discrimination. He also alleges he was terminated in 1990 due to age discrimination after refusing early retirement, though the defendant claimed misuse of company assets. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) for discrimination in tuition and termination, and Penal Law § 250.05. The Supreme Court dismissed the entire complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the tuition reimbursement claim as time-barred and the Penal Law claim for failure to state a private cause of action, but reversed the dismissal of the age discrimination termination claim, finding sufficient allegations to proceed.

employment discriminationage discriminationracial discriminationgender discriminationtuition reimbursementwrongful terminationstatute of limitationsprivate cause of actionappealcomplaint dismissal
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 287 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