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. 2016-2500 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2019

People v. Coger (Michael)

The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the conviction of Michael Coger for attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation and harassment in the second degree. Coger had appealed a judgment from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, following a nonjury trial. The core of the appeal involved the trial court's denial of a missing witness charge concerning a non-testifying police partner, which Coger argued was crucial given the sole testifying officer's alleged inconsistent testimony and the defense's contradictory witnesses. The Appellate Term found that Coger's arguments regarding the missing witness charge were largely unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, the court determined that even if preserved, the absent officer's testimony would have been cumulative, and any error in not drawing a negative inference was harmless in the context of a nonjury trial.

Criminal AppealMissing WitnessCumulative EvidenceHarassment Second DegreeAttempted Criminal ObstructionAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialWitness CredibilityHarmless ErrorPreservation of Issue
References
25
Case No. ADJ7715497
Regular
Jan 17, 2015

SUDJAI SUKSAMRARN (Deceased) TUENJAI SUKSAMRARN (Widow) vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning an earlier decision that barred Edward Steinbrecher from testifying as an expert witness. The Appeals Board found that while Steinbrecher's prior representation of the applicant in a third-party action raised questions about his impartiality, this affected the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The judge erred by disallowing testimony solely because the expert was not deemed "disinterested," as this is not a legal requirement for expert qualification. Therefore, Steinbrecher is now permitted to testify as an expert witness.

Petition for RemovalExpert Witness TestimonyDisinterested WitnessAdmissibilityWeight of EvidenceThird Party CreditIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitQualified ExpertPrior Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2012

Goreczny v. 16 Court Street Owner

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed an order granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying defendants' motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The plaintiff was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder. The court ruled that the plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing that a worker's comparative negligence is not a defense. Furthermore, defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also held that the plaintiff being the sole witness does not preclude summary judgment if the testimony is consistent.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentPlaintiff LiabilityComparative NegligenceSole Proximate CauseWitness TestimonyAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code § 23-1.21
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wise v. 141 McDonald Avenue, LLC

A construction worker ("Plaintiff") was injured in Brooklyn, New York, while performing "layout" work on a building owned by 141 McDonald Avenue, LLC, with P.L.P. Reconstruction Corp. as the general contractor. On September 15, 1999, the Plaintiff fell approximately 30 feet to the basement while descending an unsecured and unanchored wooden ladder that lacked safety features. The Plaintiff, the sole witness, alleged the ladder shifted and tilted. The defendants offered speculative testimony regarding the cause, suggesting the plaintiff's tool belt got caught. The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which requires owners and contractors to provide proper protection for workers. The court emphasized that failure to secure a ladder constitutes a violation and that even with speculative alternative explanations, summary judgment was warranted due to the lack of safety devices. The court ruled that contributory negligence is irrelevant under Labor Law § 240 (1) and affirmed that summary judgment is appropriate even with a sole witness.

Construction AccidentFall from LadderUnsecured LadderLabor Law § 240(1)Owner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceWorkplace Safety
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2000

Claim of White v. Food

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision ruling that the claimant had given timely notice of injury to their employer. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the Board's decision to credit the claimant's testimony, which was supported by his wife's testimony. The Board, as the sole and final arbiter of witness credibility, was within its authority to determine if the testimony was worthy of belief, even when faced with contradictory evidence from employer forms.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimely NoticeWitness CredibilityBoard DecisionAffirmationEmployer LiabilityInjury NotificationTestimony EvaluationAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Orse

The defendant appealed a conviction for robbery in the first degree from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The appellate court found two significant errors during the trial: the improper admission of rebuttal testimony solely to impeach the credibility of the main alibi witness on a collateral issue, and the erroneous admission of bolstering identification testimony from the arresting officer. Additionally, the jury instructions were flawed as they seemed to shift the burden of proving alibi to the defendant and lacked a similar scrutiny admonition for identification testimony. Considering the tenuous nature of the identification evidence and these cumulative errors, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered in the interest of justice.

Criminal ProcedureEvidentiary ErrorsWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewIdentification TestimonyAlibi DefenseJury Charge ErrorReversible ErrorDiscretionary ReversalInterest of Justice
References
11
Case No. ADJ8665916 ADJ8665918 ADJ8666059
Regular
May 20, 2014

JOSE MUNIZ vs. HOME TEAM PEST DEFENSE, AMERICAN INSURANCE GUARANTEE CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to overturn an order denying a change of venue. While the defendant presented witnesses and their general testimony as required by Labor Code section 5501.6(b), the WCAB found insufficient evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Key factors in the denial included the location of the applicant, their attorney, and defense counsel in Los Angeles County, and the defendant's failure to explain the specific hardship faced by their witnesses despite their proximity to Riverside. Furthermore, the sole scheduled event, a mandatory settlement conference, did not require witness presence.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.6Convenience of WitnessesSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMandatory Settlement ConferencePresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarina Del Rey District Office
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karen B. v. Clyde M.

The case involves consolidated petitions for sole custody and orders of protection between an unmarried mother and father regarding their child, Mandi M. Initially, a joint custody order was in place. The mother subsequently alleged sexual abuse of Mandi by the father, leading to a temporary supervised visitation order and investigations by Social Services and a therapist. While one expert concluded abuse, another, along with the Department of Social Services, found no evidence of abuse and questioned the mother's credibility and motives. The court, weighing conflicting expert testimonies and observing witness demeanor, found the mother's allegations to be fabricated and likely an attempt to "program" the child to gain sole custody. Consequently, the court granted sole custody to the father and prohibited the mother's visitation and contact with Mandi until a rehabilitative program is established and compliance is verified by the Probation Department. All petitions for family offenses and violations of temporary orders of protection were dismissed due to lack of proof.

Child CustodySexual Abuse AllegationsFalse AllegationsParental Alienation SyndromeCredibility AssessmentExpert Witness TestimonyChild Protection ServicesVisitation RightsFamily LawParental Fitness
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,241 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