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. 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. 94 Civ. 5279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1996

Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

This case addresses motions for judgment as a matter of law filed by defendants Hobart Corporation and Super Associated, and a motion for amendment of the retrial verdict by plaintiff Liriano, following Liriano's severe on-the-job injury from a meat grinder. The court denied the defendants' motions, affirming the jury's prior findings regarding negligence and liability. The court also granted Liriano's motion to amend the retrial verdict to include past medical expenses, citing that the jury's original finding of zero past medical expenses was inconsistent with the evidence. The opinion extensively discusses the application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(a), and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 regarding expert testimony under the Daubert standard.

Product LiabilityNegligenceWarning LabelsExpert TestimonyComparative NegligenceRule 50(b) MotionRule 59(a) New TrialDamagesMedical ExpensesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuels v. City of New York

Plaintiff Melanie Samuels sued the City of New York for personal injuries after falling into a pothole. A jury initially found the City 65% liable and Samuels 35% liable. The lower court set aside this verdict, finding the City 100% liable, and ordered a new trial for damages. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, reinstating the original jury's liability apportionment. The case is remanded for a new trial on damages, with a stipulation for the plaintiff to reduce specific awards if she wishes to avoid a full retrial on damages. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the City affirmatively created the defect.

Personal InjuryPothole AccidentMunicipal LiabilityComparative NegligenceJury VerdictDamagesNew TrialAppellate ReviewAffirmative NegligencePrior Written Notice
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lowe

The dissenting opinion by Justice Hancock, Jr., J. P., argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment without directing a reconstruction hearing concerning the defendant's competency to stand trial. The dissent contends that a successful reconstruction is likely, given the extensive contemporaneous evidence available, including testimony from multiple psychiatrists, hospital records, mental health clinic observations, and trial court personnel. Despite the passage of less than six years since the trial and the defendant's absence from court during part of the proceedings, the dissent believes these factors do not preclude a hearing. The opinion emphasizes that such a hearing would preserve the safeguards of a concurrent determination and prevent a potentially needless retrial.

Competency to Stand TrialReconstruction HearingDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedurePsychiatric ExaminationDue ProcessEvidenceJudicial DiscretionRetrial
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07035 [200 AD3d 1327]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2021

People v. Hansel

The defendant, Raymond A. Hansel, appealed his conviction for predatory sexual assault against a child and three counts of rape in the first degree, and the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the County Court erred in allowing the victim's mother to testify regarding the frequency of her sexual relations with the defendant, which was introduced to suggest his sexual desires were being met elsewhere. This error was deemed not harmless as the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, impacting the jury's credibility assessment. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial. The appeal from the CPL 440.10 order was dismissed as academic, and the court also addressed the permissibility of expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome for retrial.

Child sexual abusePredatory sexual assaultRape first degreeEvidentiary errorHarmless error doctrineVictim credibilityPostconviction motionWeight of evidence reviewExpert witness testimonyChild Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome
References
24
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03627 [229 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Dennis v. Cerrone

Plaintiff Joseph Dennis, an appellant, was injured after falling through an unguarded hole while working on a residential construction project for defendant Vincent Cerrone. He commenced an action against Cerrone and Mark Cerrone, Inc. (MCI), asserting causes of action for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The case involved several appeals and a retrial, with the Supreme Court ultimately rendering a verdict in favor of MCI and dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the order, concluding that the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. The court found that MCI did not possess the authority to enforce safety standards or direct and supervise the plaintiff's work, despite some evidence suggesting its involvement in the project.

Construction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-law NegligenceAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationsSite Superintendent
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2006

People v. Wilson

The defendant appealed a judgment from Erie County Court, rendered February 1, 2006, which convicted him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees. The appeals court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the victim's in-court identification was improper, finding an independent basis for the identification. It also dismissed claims regarding the cross-examination of alibi witnesses and a related jury charge, as well as the prosecutor's peremptory challenge. Furthermore, the court found no prosecutorial overreaching causing a mistrial that would bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds, and concluded the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and the sentence was not unduly harsh. The certificate of conviction was noted to be incorrect regarding one of the weapon possession charges.

attempted murderassaultcriminal possession of weaponin-court identificationindependent sourcealibi witnessesperemptory challengeBatson challengedouble jeopardyprosecutorial misconduct
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2012

Bracker v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, unanimously affirmed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which awarded the plaintiff a total of $204,104.52 based on a jury verdict. The appellate court found that the jury's conclusion was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, indicating that circumstantial evidence suggested the defendant's cleaning workers had ample time to discover and remedy a sticky soda spill on internal stairs before the plaintiff's accident. Furthermore, the defendant failed to preserve an argument concerning an allegedly inconsistent verdict regarding the plaintiff's comparative negligence. The appellate court noted that even if the issue had been preserved, there was a reasonable view of the evidence to find the plaintiff negligent for observing the condition without that negligence being the sole proximate cause of the fall, thus not warranting a retrial on comparative negligence.

Jury verdictAppellate reviewPremises liabilityComparative negligenceProximate causeSlip and fallStair accidentCircumstantial evidenceHazardous conditionWorker discovery
References
8
Showing 1-8 of 8 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