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. 17 NY3d 957
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Heidgen

This consolidated opinion from the New York Court of Appeals addresses challenges to depraved indifference murder convictions in three separate cases: People v Heidgen, People v Taylor, and People v McPherson. Each defendant was convicted for causing fatalities through egregiously reckless intoxicated driving. The Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that despite intoxication, there was legally sufficient evidence for juries to find the requisite mental state of depraved indifference, distinguishing these cases from prior rulings like People v Valencia and People v Prindle. The Court emphasized the fact-specific nature of depraved indifference cases. Additionally, it addressed and rejected arguments regarding the legality of blood tests and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Depraved indifference murderVehicular homicideIntoxicated drivingReckless endangermentBlood alcohol contentDrug intoxicationMental stateMens reaLegal sufficiencyIneffective assistance of counsel
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bowman

Velna Prince left her five-week-old baby, Tyshae, with the defendant, Tyrone Bowman. Upon returning, she found Tyshae in distress with severe head injuries. Doctors later confirmed blunt head trauma and blood clots, which were inconsistent with the defendant's claim of an accidental fall. Tyshae subsequently died. The defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder and sentenced to 25 years to life. On appeal, the defendant argued insufficient evidence for depraved indifference, claiming his actions were more consistent with intentional murder or lacked the required mental state. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the jury rationally concluded reckless rather than intentional conduct, and the defendant's acts demonstrated wanton cruelty and utter indifference to human life, exacerbated by his failure to seek help.

Depraved Indifference MurderChild AbuseHead TraumaReckless ConductIntentional ActSufficiency of EvidencePenal LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMedical Testimony
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Goldstein

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. He argued that his guilty plea was involuntary, citing issues with his allocution regarding depraved indifference, coercion by the court, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly given, and that the allocution adequately established the element of depraved indifference. The court also rejected the defendant's contentions regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences and the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, concluding that these arguments lacked merit. His challenge to the severity of the sentence was foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal, and the claim of ineffective counsel was unsupported by the record.

Reckless EndangermentAggravated Unlicensed OperationGuilty PleaVoluntary PleaDepraved IndifferenceConsecutive SentencesIneffective CounselAppeal WaiverCriminal LawVehicular Crimes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gobindram v. Bank of India

Kailash Gobindram appealed a Bankruptcy Court order that denied his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) for making false oaths in his Chapter 7 petition. The Bankruptcy Court found Gobindram demonstrated reckless disregard for the truth by omitting material information about pre-petition transfers of over $120,000 in tax refunds to creditors and insiders. Gobindram argued the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding fraudulent intent and rejecting his advice of counsel defense. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that Gobindram's admitted failure to read his petition before signing it constituted reckless indifference to the truth, equivalent to fraudulent intent, and that his reliance on counsel was unreasonable given the 'transparently plain' nature of the omissions.

BankruptcyDischarge DenialFalse OathFraudulent IntentReckless DisregardAdvice of CounselChapter 7OmissionsTax RefundsPre-petition Transfers
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinen v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney for disability discrimination based on perceived alcoholism, violating the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). A jury found for the plaintiffs under the NYCHRL and awarded damages. Defendants filed Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 post-trial motions. The court partially granted the Rule 50(b) motion, vacating punitive damages against Commissioner Kelly, but denied all other Rule 50(b) claims and the entire Rule 59 motion. The decision upheld compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney, finding sufficient evidence of his malice or reckless indifference.

DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityAlcoholismNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Punitive Damages
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drouillard v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

The Plaintiff brought claims of hostile work environment based on race and gender, as well as retaliation, against the Defendant employer. The court found sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment for the race-based hostile work environment claim, citing repeated use of racial epithets by a coworker, Elkilany. However, the court granted summary judgment for the gender-based hostile work environment claims, finding the allegations of sexual proposition and general use of 'bitch' insufficiently severe. All retaliation claims were also dismissed, as the Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her protected activities and the alleged adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, finding no evidence of malice or reckless indifference on the employer's part.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial HarassmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DiscriminationRacial SlursSexual Harassment AllegationsEmployer Liability
References
89
Case No. 17-40152-CEC
Regular Panel Decision

Glassman v. Feldman (In re Feldman)

This case addresses the motion of Donald Glassman, a creditor, seeking to dismiss the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case of Robert Feldman, the debtor, with prejudice and to impose sanctions. Glassman alleged that Feldman filed his petition in bad faith to halt a state court malpractice action and failed to comply with multiple discovery orders. Presiding Judge Carla E. Craig found that Feldman, an attorney, exhibited reckless indifference in his financial disclosures and testimony, attempting to shift blame to his counsel for material misstatements regarding his income and assets. The court also noted the case essentially involved a two-party dispute. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice for one year, and the motion for sanctions was partially granted, requiring Feldman to pay $15,953.20 in attorney's fees for discovery non-compliance, but not the full amount requested by Glassman.

Chapter 13Bankruptcy DismissalBad Faith FilingSanctionsDiscovery ViolationsDebtor MisconductFalse StatementsAttorney ResponsibilityTwo-Party DisputeLitigation Tactics
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moreo v. Rossi (In Re Moreo)

The case involves an appeal by debtors Vincent and Marian Norma Moreo from a Bankruptcy Court decision denying their Chapter 7 discharge. The Bankruptcy Court's denial was based on Mrs. Moreo's failure to maintain adequate financial records (under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3)) and both debtors making false oaths or accounts (under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A)). On appeal, the District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, reviewed the matter. The court affirmed the denial of Mrs. Moreo's discharge, finding her record-keeping practices for their bagel business were insufficient and not justified. The court also affirmed the denial of discharge for both debtors due to false oaths, citing their omissions of three lawsuits and Mr. Moreo's 100% shareholder interest in the Bagel Store from their bankruptcy schedules, demonstrating a reckless indifference to the truth. The court emphasized the cumulative effect of these misstatements and omissions in upholding the Bankruptcy Court's decision.

Bankruptcy AppealChapter 7 DischargeFalse OathOmission of AssetsInadequate Financial RecordsReckless IndifferenceCreditor FraudSchedules AmendmentMeans Test ErrorsSmall Business Accounting
References
67
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05850
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2025

People v. Flanigan

Defendant Razeah S. Flanigan appealed convictions for assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, stemming from an incident where he fired a flare gun, injuring the victim's arm. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the weight of the evidence for the assault conviction, concluding that the victim suffered a serious physical injury due to disfigurement and protracted impairment. The court affirmed the assault conviction but found that reckless endangerment in the second degree was an erroneous lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, though harmless as it was a proper lesser included offense of another count. Ultimately, the court determined that reckless endangerment in the second degree was a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, leading to the dismissal of the reckless endangerment conviction. The judgment was modified to dismiss the conviction on count 3 and affirmed as modified.

Assault Second DegreeReckless EndangermentSerious Physical InjuryLesser Included OffenseFlare Gun InjuryCriminal Weapon PossessionJustification DefenseWeight of Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionConviction Modification
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 139 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