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 v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1999

People v. Livotti

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of second-degree burglary and fifth-degree criminal possession of stolen property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. The appeal specifically challenged the hearing court's finding that a jewelry store worker's identification of the defendant was merely confirmatory, citing People v Rodriguez among other cases. Additionally, the defendant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, a contention which the court found to be without merit, referencing People v Suitte. The remaining contentions raised by the defendant were also dismissed.

Criminal LawBurglary Second DegreeCriminal Possession of Stolen Property Fifth DegreeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewIdentification TestimonyConfirmatory IdentificationSentence ReviewJudicial AffirmationKings County
References
5
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. Dozier

The case People v. Dozier addresses whether incarceration under a subsequently vacated conviction can be used to toll the 10-year limitation for enhanced sentencing of second violent felony offenders under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). Defendant Robert Dozier's 1980 rape and sodomy conviction was vacated due to newly discovered evidence regarding the complainant's psychiatric history, leading to the indictment's dismissal. The People argued that "incarcerated for any reason" should be interpreted literally, applying even to invalid convictions unless deemed unconstitutional. The Court, affirming the Appellate Division, rejected this strict interpretation. It held that the tolling provision does not apply when incarceration results from a "without reason" or flawed conviction that is ultimately dismissed, compelling Dozier's resentencing as a first felony offender.

Second violent felony offenderEnhanced sentencingPenal LawTolling periodIncarcerationVacated convictionNewly discovered evidenceCPL 440.10Statutory interpretationCriminal law
References
20
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Milton C. Johnson Co.

Milton O. Johnson Company, a corporation, and its president, Walter Gemmill, were charged with violating Labor Law sections 191(1)(a) and 198-c for failing to pay employee wages and vacation benefits. The company abruptly ran out of funds on October 14, 1970, after its factoring company, Armstrong, ceased financial support. Gemmill, who had intimate knowledge of the company's precarious financial state, informed employees there were no funds for their wages or benefits. The court found the corporation strictly liable for the malum prohibitum violations. Regarding Gemmill, despite his defense that he could not have knowingly permitted the violation due to the unforeseeable action by Armstrong, the court determined that his deep involvement and awareness of the company's financial instability meant he "knew or should have known" of the risk of non-payment. Citing precedents like People v. Trapp and People v. Ahrend Co., the court concluded that the risk of such an event rests with the employer and its managers, not the employees. Consequently, both the corporation and Walter Gemmill were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the specified Labor Law sections.

Criminal LiabilityWage Non-PaymentVacation BenefitsCorporate Officer LiabilityKnowing PermitFinancial DistressMalum ProhibitumLabor Law ViolationEmployer ResponsibilityOfficer Guilt
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22200 [75 Misc 3d 60]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2022

People v. Washington (Michael)

In People v Washington, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, reversed Michael Washington's conviction for attempted assault and harassment. The Criminal Court had allowed the prosecution to introduce the complainant's prior statements to the police and a domestic incident report, despite the complainant not testifying, which the Appellate Term ruled violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the People failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Washington caused the witness's unavailability, as required after a Sirois hearing. As the complainant's out-of-court statements were the sole evidence against Washington, the error was not harmless, leading to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument. Presiding Judge Aliotta dissented, contending that the People had provided sufficient evidence of defendant's unlawful influence.

Criminal ProcedureConfrontation ClauseHearsay EvidenceWitness TamperingDomestic Violence CasesAppellate ReversalSixth AmendmentEvidentiary ErrorSirois HearingAttempted Assault
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cruz

The dissenting opinion argues against affirming a restitution award to Nassau County. The majority held Nassau County is a "victim" under Penal Law § 60.27 for sick leave and medical bills paid to a police officer injured during a burglary. The dissent contends that statutory interpretation and public policy preclude reimbursing a municipal law enforcement agency for foreseeable operating costs, including personnel costs. It asserts that sick leave payments are not "actual out-of-pocket loss" and, referencing People v Rowe, law enforcement agencies are not "victims" for normal operating expenses. The dissent criticizes the distinction between operational and employment functions, arguing that costs for officer injuries are inherent to crime-fighting and should not be recovered from the defendant without specific statutory authorization.

restitutionPenal Law § 60.27victim statuslaw enforcement agencyoperating costssick leavemunicipal liabilitypolice officer injurystatutory interpretationlegislative intent
References
4
Case No. 85-00738
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Watt

This case, on remittitur from the Court of Appeals, addresses whether five-month time periods alleged in an indictment for sexual abuse crimes against a minor (victim NB) were reasonably specific to provide the defendant, James Watt, with adequate notice to prepare a defense. The Court applies the People v Morris test, examining factors such as prosecutorial diligence, victim's age (3-9 years old), the nature of the widespread abuse in an illegal day-care center, and the defendant's threats that prevented early disclosure. Despite the lack of specific dates, the Court finds no intentional nondisclosure or lack of diligence by the prosecution. Given the circumstances, including the defendant's living and working at the crime scene and the victims' inability to particularize dates, the Court concludes that the five-month time allegations were reasonably precise. Therefore, the defendant's convictions on specific counts of rape and sodomy are affirmed.

Child sexual abuseIndictment specificityTime allegationsDue process noticeAlibi defenseProsecutorial diligenceChild victim testimonyDay-care center crimesAppellate reviewRemittitur
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 20,385 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