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. Brooks

This case involves a defendant, Steven Brooks, seeking dismissal of two felony counts (burglary and criminal mischief) from his indictment in the interest of justice, pursuant to CPL 210.40. Brooks, a persistent felony offender with significant mental and physical disabilities, was arrested in 1986 for taking beer and a television from a distributorship. The court, presided over by Harold Fertig, J., held a People v Clayton hearing with testimonies from multiple psychiatrists and a social worker, who highlighted Brooks's limited intelligence, brain damage, chronic depression, and inability to cope with society or prison life. Despite the prosecution's opposition, the court found that further incarceration would not rehabilitate Brooks and that the Department of Correctional Services inadequately addresses the needs of inmates like him. Concluding that a dismissal of the felony charges would allow for a sentence of probation with placement in a residential treatment program, thereby strengthening public confidence and promoting community welfare, the court granted the dismissal of the felony counts.

Criminal Procedure LawCPL 210.40Dismissal in interest of justicePersistent felony offenderMental health issuesCognitive impairmentRecidivismRehabilitationResidential treatment programProbation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies v. Brooks

This action arises from an alleged overpayment of no-fault benefits by State Farm to James Brooks. Brooks, injured in an automobile accident, received lost earnings benefits from State Farm, but was later furloughed from his job due to lack of work, not his injury, yet continued to receive full benefits. State Farm sought to recover the alleged overpayment, arguing an insurance regulation (11 NYCRR 65.6 (n) (2) (vi)) required a reduction to unemployment benefits if the position would have been lost regardless of the accident. The court, in a case of first impression, found this regulation invalid as applied to Brooks, conflicting with the Insurance Law's purpose of compensating for actual economic loss. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, James Brooks.

No-fault insuranceAutomobile accidentOverpayment of benefitsLost earningsUnemployment benefitsInsurance Law interpretationSummary judgmentStatutory conflictRegulation validityEconomic loss
References
13
Case No. 153 AD3d 1621
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2017

Matter of Brooks v. Greene

This case involves an appeal by Halbert Brooks, Jr. (father) from a Family Court order that awarded sole custody of the parties' child to Paula Greene (mother) and mandated supervised overnight visitation for the father. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed the appeal concerning supervised visitation as moot because subsequent orders allowed unsupervised visitation. However, the appeal was not moot regarding the custody issues. The Court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the father's recusal motion against the Judge and his motion to remove the Attorney for the Child, finding no substantiated allegations of bias in either instance.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsRecusal MotionAttorney for the ChildMootness DoctrineJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewBias AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 6
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

The CSEA, representing employees at SUNY Stony Brook, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent the university from allowing a rival union, Hospital Workers Union 1199, to hold a meeting on campus. CSEA argued this violated their collective bargaining agreement. The university contended the meeting was student-organized for academic freedom, not union organizing. The court ruled that the contract provision regarding meeting space must be interpreted narrowly to avoid violating the university's constitutional obligation to provide facilities nondiscriminatorily. Consequently, the court dismissed the CSEA's petition.

Academic FreedomFreedom of SpeechCollective Bargaining AgreementRival UnionsFacility UseDiscriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawArticle 78 Proceeding
References
11
Case No. 30 AD3d 876
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra M. v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

The plaintiffs, Sandra M. and her husband, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, dismissing their complaint. Sandra M. was allegedly sexually assaulted by a nursing assistant, Ricardo Cortez, supplied by United Staffing System, Inc., while on suicide watch at the Hospital. The plaintiffs sued the Hospital, United, and Cortez, alleging the Hospital was negligent in its suicide watch policies and its failure to independently evaluate staff provided by United. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against the Hospital. The court found the Hospital was not vicariously liable for Cortez's personal tortious acts and had no duty to independently screen employees supplied by United, as it had no prior knowledge of Cortez's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AssaultNegligenceHospital LiabilityVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuicide Watch
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galdemis v. Brook

The case involves a medical malpractice action where defendants Marion Hansen and Dr. Judith Brook appealed the denial of their motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied their motions with leave to renew pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the injured plaintiff's eligibility for benefits. The plaintiffs also cross-appealed, but their cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to refer the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board and properly refused to entertain the appellants' motions for summary judgment at that stage.

medical malpracticesummary judgmentWorkers' Compensation Lawappealjurisdictionreferral to agencyNassau County Supreme Courtappellate division
References
4
Case No. ADJ1885780
Regular
Jun 02, 2010

SANDRA SHERMAN, SANDRA SMITH vs. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Applicant Sandra Sherman (also known as Sandra Smith) against Graybar Electric Company and BroadsPIRE. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReport and RecommendationDeny on the meritsSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Lucena v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. 2016-1509 OR CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

People v. Nagler (Sandra)

Sandra Nagler appealed six judgments from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, primarily challenging her conviction for common-law driving while intoxicated (DWI). Following a nonjury trial, she was found guilty based on testimony from Trooper Brad Natalizio, who responded to an accident where Nagler admitted to falling asleep after consuming alcohol. The Justice Court initially sentenced Nagler to 45 days incarceration and three years' probation for the DWI conviction. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeals for other traffic infractions as abandoned. While upholding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the Appellate Term found the 45-day jail sentence excessive, considering Nagler's community involvement and lack of prior criminal history. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, reducing the term of incarceration to time served while affirming the conviction.

Driving While IntoxicatedDUIDWIVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate ReviewSentence ModificationExcessive SentenceCommon-law DWIOrange CountyTown of Wallkill
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1986

Brooks v. A. Gatty Service Co.

Francis Brooks, an employee of the White Plains Housing Authority, sustained injuries in 1982 while operating a refuse compactor manufactured by A. Gatty Service Co., Inc. William Timm & Associates, an engineering firm hired by the Housing Authority to inspect the compactor, was named as a defendant. Timm moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a consulting engineer, they could not be held liable to the injured worker without affirmative negligence or a specific contractual provision. The Supreme Court initially denied their motion, but the appellate court modified this decision. Finding no evidence of affirmative negligence, the appellate court granted summary judgment in favor of William Timm & Associates, affirming the order as modified.

Personal InjuryNegligenceBreach of WarrantyStrict Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentConsulting Engineer LiabilityProduct LiabilityRefuse Compactor InjuryAppellate ReviewThird-Party Defendant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1994

Brooke v. Schlesinger

Peter Brooke filed a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for common law fraud against Daniel Stieglitz, Mark Sugel, and other defendants. Brooke alleged a scheme to defraud him at Net 30 Accessories, Inc., which he co-founded. The alleged fraudulent activities included invoicing fraud, concealment of financial information, and inducing Brooke to sell his interest in the company under false pretenses. Defendants Stieglitz and Sugel moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. The court granted Stieglitz's motion, dismissing the RICO and common law fraud claims against him due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts and lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the state claim. However, the court denied Sugel's motion, finding that Brooke sufficiently pleaded predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, causation, and common law fraud against him. Plaintiff Brooke was granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days.

RICO ActCivil ActionMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudFraudulent SchemeRacketeering ActivityPattern of RacketeeringProximate CauseRICO Conspiracy
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 188 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