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
Aug 16, 1982

People v. Nieto

This case involves an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of robbery in the second degree. The core issue on appeal was whether the People presented sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of two accomplices, Anastasio Santiago and Julio Perez, who planned and executed the robbery with the defendant. The defendant allegedly informed the accomplices about the victim's valuable jewelry and suggested a time for the robbery. The court found that the evidence relied upon by the People, including the defendant's presence at the job site, association with accomplices, a statement about the robbery time, the victim's phone call testimony, and a police detective's rebuttal testimony, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for independent corroboration under CPL 60.22. The corroborative evidence, at best, only supported the accomplices' credibility but failed to connect the defendant with the crime. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the indictment was dismissed.

Accomplice TestimonyCorroboration EvidenceRobbery Second DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceIndictment DismissedAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawImpeachment EvidenceIndependent CorroborationWitness Credibility
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1985

People v. Gamble

Defendant was convicted of first and second-degree robbery following a jury trial for an incident on April 8, 1984, involving a subway token booth robbery in Manhattan. After his arrest, and despite invoking his right to remain silent, Detective Clinton engaged the defendant, leading to oral and written admissions. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress these statements, deeming them spontaneous. On appeal, even the prosecution conceded some admissions were unlawfully obtained. This dissenting opinion argues that all of defendant's oral and written statements should have been suppressed as they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and were not spontaneous. The dissent concludes that the judgment of conviction should be reversed, the statements suppressed, the conviction vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

RobberyFirst Degree RobberySecond Degree RobberyMiranda WarningsRight to Remain SilentRight to CounselSuppression of StatementsSpontaneous StatementsInterrogation EnvironmentHarmless Error
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

People v. Davis

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Broome County, stemming from a 1997 robbery of a Giant Market where he was accused of aiding and abetting the actual robber. The defendant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including witness testimonies and physical evidence found at the defendant's apartment. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant an accomplice and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A procedural issue concerning the jury's request to replay a surveillance videotape was also addressed, but deemed unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyFirst DegreeAccompliceCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceJury DeliberationsProcedural ErrorPreservation Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Craig

The defendant appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree, challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the denial of eyewitness testimony for a lineup identification, and the allowance of cross-examination regarding prior convictions. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of guilt. It concluded that the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for excusing prospective jurors and that the denial of eyewitness testimony was within discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the cross-examination on prior convictions was permissible for credibility and the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's criminal record.

robberysecond degreejury verdictperemptory challengesracial discriminationBatson challengejury selectionlineup identificationprior convictionscredibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Crudup

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of robbery in the third degree. He was acquitted of two October 3, 1979 robberies but convicted of a December 10, 1979 robbery. The appellate court found the identification evidence against the defendant for the December 10 robbery to be extremely weak, particularly when contrasted with the strong alibi defenses presented. Given that the defendant was acquitted of the October 3 robberies, but the same modus operandi suggested the same perpetrator for both, the court concluded that the defendant did not commit the December 10 robbery either. The judgment of conviction was reversed, and the indictment dismissed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, as guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and there was a grave risk of mistaken identification.

Robbery Third DegreeMistaken IdentificationAlibi DefenseWeight of EvidenceInterest of JusticeIndictment DismissedAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawNonjury TrialReasonable Doubt
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lloyd

Defendant Stephanie Lloyd was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence after her involvement in planning an armed robbery of the Wyandanch Post Office where she worked. Lloyd intended to be present during the robbery to fraudulently claim worker's compensation benefits. Although the robbery occurred on a different date than planned, and Lloyd was not present, she was found guilty. She subsequently filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and errors in jury instructions, including the application of Pinkerton liability. The Court denied both motions, affirming the jury's verdict based on the evidence presented and proper legal standards.

Criminal LawConspiracy to Commit RobberyArmed RobberyBrandishing a FirearmJudgment of Acquittal MotionNew Trial MotionFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureSufficiency of Evidence ReviewWitness Credibility AssessmentPinkerton Doctrine
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Fredericks

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of multiple counts of robbery and attempted robbery. The appellate court found that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request an affirmative defense instruction regarding the use of a BB gun, which is not a loaded weapon capable of causing serious physical injury, to distinguish first-degree from second-degree robbery. Additionally, the trial court erred in its jury instructions on the lesser-included offense without clarifying the affirmative defense. As a result, the convictions for first-degree robbery and attempted first-degree robbery were reduced to second-degree, and the case was remitted for resentencing.

Ineffective assistance of counselRobbery first degreeRobbery second degreeAttempted robberyJury instructionsLesser-included offenseAffirmative defenseBB gun as weaponCriminal possession of weaponGrand larceny
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1994

People v. Curry

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of multiple counts of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree. The original sentence imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment. The appellate court, in the interest of justice, modified the judgment by directing that certain sentences for robbery and attempted robbery counts run concurrently. As modified, the judgment was affirmed. The court noted that while consecutive sentences for crimes against multiple victims are not improper, the sentence in this case was excessive to the extent indicated. The defendant's remaining contention was unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyAttempted RobberyConsecutive SentencesConcurrent SentencesAppellate ReviewExcessive SentenceCriminal LawJury VerdictSentencing ModificationKings County Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1992

People v. Middleton

Defendant Middleton appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and other charges. The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of force necessary for robbery, as a mere 'pocketbook snatching' without aggravating factors does not constitute robbery in New York, leading to the reversal and dismissal of that count. Furthermore, the court committed reversible error by improperly limiting the defense counsel's closing argument concerning a potential alternate suspect, Murphy, and related evidence. Consequently, the defendant was granted a new trial on the remaining counts of the indictment. The judgment was reversed, the robbery count dismissed, and the matter remitted for a new trial.

Criminal LawRobbery Third DegreeGrand Larceny Fourth DegreeCriminal Possession Stolen PropertyEvidence SufficiencyUse of ForceJury Charge ErrorSummation LimitationRight to CounselAppellate Reversal
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 102 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