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. Bing

This case involves a Huntley hearing concerning the admissibility of statements made by defendant Bruce Bing to the police. A robbery-burglary occurred on May 17, 1985, at St. Joachim’s Church in Cedarhurst, Nassau County. Based on information from a reliable confidential informant and an eyewitness description, Detective Glenn Dowd and Detective Joseph Brand arrested Bruce Bing on May 25, 1985. Bing was Mirandized and confessed to the crime, both orally in the police car and in a written statement at the precinct. The defense challenged the voluntariness of the confession due to alleged drug withdrawal symptoms and argued a violation of Bing's right to counsel, citing his existing legal representation in Ohio for unrelated charges. The court found the informant reliable, established probable cause for the arrest, and concluded that Bing's statements were voluntarily given and admissible. The court also determined that the defendant's out-of-state legal representation on an out-of-state charge did not trigger New York's indelible right to counsel.

Huntley HearingAdmissibility of StatementsVoluntariness of ConfessionMiranda RightsProbable CauseRight to CounselConfidential Informant ReliabilityOut-of-State RepresentationDrug Withdrawal SymptomsCriminal Procedure Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
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

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. CV-89-2182
Regular Panel Decision

Pabon v. Hake

The petitioner, Pabon, filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his state court conviction. He argued that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of a videotaped statement at trial, which he claimed was tainted by a prior unwarned statement. Pabon also contended that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, alleging it was vindictive punishment for exercising his right to a jury trial. The District Court denied the petition, finding that all his statements were voluntarily made under the Oregon v. Elstad precedent, and thus their admission did not violate his constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court determined that Pabon failed to prove his sentence was unconstitutionally vindictive or based on materially inaccurate information, as it was within statutory limits and supported by trial evidence.

Habeas CorpusFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentEighth AmendmentMiranda RightsVoluntary StatementCoerced ConfessionVindictive SentencingJury Trial RightDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cassano

This insider trading case concerns alleged illegal trading activities stemming from material nonpublic information regarding IBM's 1995 hostile tender offer for Lotus Development Corporation. An IBM secretary, Lorraine Cassano, leaked information about the impending acquisition to her husband, Robert Cassano, who then shared it with P. Gerard Mazzone, leading to profitable trades. Mazzone further tipped Richard Cofrancesco, who in turn informed Dominic Alba. Alba, along with Dominic Spinelli, Josephine DeCicco, and Claudio Spinelli (the 'Alba Defendants'), then engaged in significant insider trading using Lotus call options, realizing substantial profits. The Alba Defendants are also accused of providing false statements to SEC investigators about their trading activities and knowledge of other traders. The court denied the Alba Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, which argued a failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and a failure to state a claim for injunctive relief.

Insider TradingSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 14e-3Motion to DismissInjunctive ReliefFraud PleadingFed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)Material Nonpublic InformationTender OfferCorporate Acquisition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godinez v. Siena College

Plaintiff, an alumnus of Siena College, initiated a lawsuit against Siena College and Shirley Staley, a nurse employed at the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC). The action stemmed from Staley's report to a crisis team about potential violent behavior by the plaintiff at his graduation ceremony, information allegedly based on statements from the plaintiff's mother. Following this, Siena College declared the plaintiff 'persona non grata' and barred him from campus. The plaintiff alleged that Staley negligently disclosed inaccurate confidential information and that Siena College negligently barred him from campus without due process. The Supreme Court granted Siena College's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, and subsequently dismissed the complaint against Staley at the close of the plaintiff's case. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, ruling that Siena College had the authority to ban the plaintiff as an alumnus and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against Staley because the alleged confidential information was deemed manufactured and thus lacked confidentiality.

Student conductPersona non grataConfidentiality breachMental health informationSummary judgmentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewEducation lawExecutive lawCivil rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,838 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