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

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Mason

Defendant Donald Mason was indicted on federal charges including firearm and drug possession. He filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, arguing violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The court determined that the initial encounter with NYPD officers in a public housing building, where Mason was a non-resident, was consensual. His subsequent attempt to flee, coupled with evidence of trespassing, provided officers with probable cause for arrest. The court denied the motion to suppress physical evidence and statements on Fourth Amendment grounds, finding the arrest and search lawful. Additionally, Mason's post-arrest statements were admissible as spontaneous utterances, not resulting from custodial interrogation prior to Miranda warnings.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentMotion to SuppressProbable CauseReasonable SuspicionConsensual EncountersInvestigative DetentionsArrestTrespassingCriminal Procedure
References
35
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05441 [174 AD3d 1295]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2019

People v. Hymes

Defendant Justin Hymes appealed his conviction from Onondaga County Court for predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. His appeal raised several contentions, including the denial of his Antommarchi right during sidebar conferences, improper admission of uncharged crime evidence, failure to suppress his statements, and challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. Hymes also argued improper bolstering testimony regarding victim disclosures and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the Antommarchi right waived, the victim's testimony not Molineux evidence, his statements voluntary, and the evidence sufficient. The court further ruled that the victim's disclosures were admissible under prompt outcry or to explain the investigative process, and defense counsel provided meaningful representation, despite a dissenting opinion that argued for a new trial due to the lack of a limiting instruction and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellate ReviewCriminal LawSexual AssaultChild EndangermentJury SelectionAntommarchi RightMolineux EvidenceSuppression of StatementsEvidentiary IssuesIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lattarulo

Defendant William Lattarulo was charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment following a building wall collapse at his construction site, which resulted in a worker's death. The court conducted a hearing on the defendant's motions to suppress statements and physical evidence. The defendant argued that his statements were obtained through an illegal automobile stop, without Miranda warnings, and in violation of his right to counsel. The court found no illegal stop or seizure, no custody requiring Miranda warnings, and no unequivocal request for counsel. Additionally, the physical evidence was obtained through a valid search warrant or voluntary consent. Therefore, the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.

Suppression MotionManslaughterReckless EndangermentBuilding CollapseConstruction AccidentMiranda WarningsRight to CounselNon-Custodial InterviewSearch WarrantConsent to Search
References
23
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06663
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2016

Matter of Ricardo M.J. (Kiomara A.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found the respondent mother, Kiomara A., neglected her child, Ricardo M.J., through excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's determination was supported by evidence including the child's statements to a social worker about being beaten with a spiked belt, the mother's admission, and observations of bruises on the child's body. The child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by the physical evidence and statements made to a detective. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, noting the mother offered inconsistent explanations for the child's injuries. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentEvidenceBruisesChild InterviewSocial Worker Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicole S.

This neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act addresses the corroboration required for a child’s unsworn, out-of-court statements. The petitioner alleged respondent Steven S. physically injured his four-year-old child, presenting evidence solely through caseworkers' testimony recounting the child's statements and observations of injuries. The court found that while independent evidence confirmed injuries, there was no corroboration regarding the perpetrator's identity or the manner of injury, independent of the child’s hearsay statements. Applying the corroboration standard from criminal and juvenile delinquency cases, which mandates corroboration for all material elements, the court determined the petitioner failed to satisfy this burden. Consequently, the petition against Steven S. was dismissed.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration RequirementUnsworn Child StatementHearsay ExceptionPhysical InjuryAbuse or Neglect ProceedingSufficiency of EvidenceDue Process ConsiderationsCriminal Procedure Law Standards
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22200 [75 Misc 3d 60]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2022

People v. Washington (Michael)

In People v Washington, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, reversed Michael Washington's conviction for attempted assault and harassment. The Criminal Court had allowed the prosecution to introduce the complainant's prior statements to the police and a domestic incident report, despite the complainant not testifying, which the Appellate Term ruled violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the People failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Washington caused the witness's unavailability, as required after a Sirois hearing. As the complainant's out-of-court statements were the sole evidence against Washington, the error was not harmless, leading to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument. Presiding Judge Aliotta dissented, contending that the People had provided sufficient evidence of defendant's unlawful influence.

Criminal ProcedureConfrontation ClauseHearsay EvidenceWitness TamperingDomestic Violence CasesAppellate ReversalSixth AmendmentEvidentiary ErrorSirois HearingAttempted Assault
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00978 [158 AD3d 1291]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

People v. Holdby

Defendant Christopher Holdby appealed a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, which the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed. The court upheld the County Court's decision to not suppress guns found in his apartment and his statements to the police, deeming the search lawful due to a probation violation and the statements investigatory. It was determined that the conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence, not against the weight of the evidence, and the "home exception" to weapon possession was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Holdby's CPL 330.30 (1) motion to set aside the verdict based on ineffective assistance of counsel without a hearing, noting counsel's strategic handling of evidence.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond Degree Weapon PossessionSuppression HearingProbation ViolationLawful SearchInvestigatory QuestionsLegally Sufficient EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHome ExceptionIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1991

People v. Hurd

The Supreme Court of New York County rendered a judgment on May 7, 1991, convicting the defendant of murder in the second degree, with a sentence of 22 years to life. This judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court determined that any potential prejudice arising from the prosecutor's improper statement during summation regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's confession was effectively cured by the trial court's actions. These actions included sustaining the defendant's objection, providing immediate curative instructions, and delivering an extensive charge on confession voluntariness. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecutor's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, which encompassed medical evidence, eyewitness testimony from the victim's granddaughter, and the defendant's own statements.

MurderSecond Degree MurderJury TrialVideotaped ConfessionConfession VoluntarinessProsecutorial MisconductHarmless ErrorCurative InstructionsOverwhelming EvidenceAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganci v. Berry

The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contending he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. He had been convicted in Suffolk County, New York, for two bank robberies. Petitioner claimed F.B.I. reports containing witness descriptions inconsistent with his appearance were wrongfully withheld, and that local prosecutors failed to disclose witness statements describing the robber's eye color as brown, despite his blue eyes. The court found that state prosecutors were not obligated to furnish F.B.I. reports they had never seen or possessed. However, it ruled that the local prosecutors should have disclosed the witness statements regarding eye color, as they were inconsistent with the petitioner's blue eyes. Despite this, the court determined there was no reasonable probability that this evidence would have changed the jury's verdict, given other strong identification evidence and corroborating factors related to the second robbery. Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationExculpatory EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductBank RobberyWitness IdentificationMateriality of EvidenceDue ProcessState Remedies ExhaustionFBI Investigation
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,051 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