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 Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1987

People v. Wilens

The defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree sodomy and incest from Dutchess County. The appeal concerned the admissibility of a social worker's testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by the five-year-old victim. The defendant argued that the social worker's testimony improperly bolstered the victim's repudiated Grand Jury testimony, which the defense implied was fabricated under the Assistant District Attorney's influence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the social worker's testimony was properly admitted to rehabilitate the victim's testimony against claims of recent fabrication.

sodomyincestchild victimcross-examinationprior consistent statementsrecent fabricationrehabilitation of witnessappellate reviewadmissibility of evidencewitness testimony
References
2
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. Cheatham

Justice Spatt dissents, voting to affirm a judgment against a defendant convicted of a crime involving a 10-year-old victim at a Queens public school. The defendant argued for reversal due to insufficient evidence and inconsistent witness testimony, or to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Spatt, J., found the 12-year-old victim's sworn testimony, given two years after the 1985 incident, legally sufficient and the verdict supported by the evidence. The victim identified the defendant, a Parks Department employee assigned to the school's vicinity, who matched her description and had knowledge of the school. The dissent addresses and refutes the defendant's claims regarding uniform color and lack of key possession as not being decisive. The trial court's "special scrutiny" of the victim's "forthright and unwavering" testimony led to a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which Justice Spatt upholds.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationChild VictimSexual AssaultDissenting OpinionCriminal Procedure LawQueens County
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05522
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v. Johnson

The New York State Office of Victim Services, on behalf of Harriet Days, sought a preliminary injunction against Ernest Johnson, a convicted murderer, to restrain his access to workplace injury settlement funds held in his prisoner account. The petition was filed under Executive Law § 632-a, known as the Son of Sam Law. The Supreme Court granted the injunction, which Johnson appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the injunction, holding that the Son of Sam Law applies to funds acquired before conviction, supersedes Workers' Compensation Law § 33 regarding creditor claims, and allows the petitioner to seek provisional remedies like preliminary injunctions. The decision emphasizes the Legislature's intent to ensure crime victims are compensated from a convicted person's assets, regardless of the source or timing of acquisition.

Son of Sam LawPreliminary InjunctionVictim CompensationPrisoner FundsSettlement FundsExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCrime Victims Board
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2006

People v. Benston

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Supreme Court, Bronx County, of multiple charges including assault, attempted assault, criminal possession of a weapon, and criminal contempt. The judgment, rendered on June 28, 2006, was unanimously affirmed. The court properly admitted limited references in medical records and testimony regarding the victim's domestic violence diagnosis, as it directly impacted her prescribed treatment. The court's reasonable limitations on the defendant's impeachment of the victim did not violate his right of confrontation, as questioning became repetitive. Additionally, the court rightly ruled against redacting a 911 call recording, determining that such redaction could mislead the jury.

Assault Second DegreeAttempted AssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponCriminal ContemptIntimidating Victim or WitnessAggravated HarassmentHarassmentJury TrialEvidentiary RulingsDomestic Violence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

In re Nelo O

The presentment agency moved for an order to declare the five-year-old victim, Jessi M., a \"vulnerable witness\" in a juvenile delinquency proceeding against respondent Noel O., who is accused of sex offenses. The declaration would allow Jessi M. to testify via live, two-way closed-circuit television. The court applied the 2007 amendments to Family Court Act § 343.1 (4) and Criminal Procedure Law § 65.20, which define a vulnerable witness as a child likely to suffer serious mental or emotional harm that would substantially impair their ability to communicate if required to testify without closed-circuit television. Expert testimony from Dr. Mitchell Frank detailed Jessi M.'s post-traumatic stress symptoms and profound fear of Noel O., concluding that testifying in his physical presence would cause severe anxiety and emotional shutdown. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the victim's vulnerability based on several statutory factors, including the heinous nature of the alleged acts, the victim's young age, the respondent's prior family-like relationship with the victim, and expert psychological opinion. Consequently, the motion to declare Jessi M. a vulnerable witness and permit her testimony by closed-circuit television was granted.

Vulnerable WitnessClosed-Circuit Television TestimonyJuvenile DelinquencyChild AbuseSexual AbuseWitness CompetencyConfrontation ClausePsychological HarmExpert TestimonyFamily Court Act
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert U.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated the respondent's children and stepchildren as abused and/or neglected. The respondent argued that his due process rights were violated due to his exclusion from the courtroom during the testimony of the child victims and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found that while the Family Court did not explicitly balance the respondent's due process rights against the children's well-being, this error did not necessitate reversal because a prima facie case of abuse was established by other evidence, making the child victims' testimony non-essential for that purpose. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting counsel's presence during testimony and a provided adjournment. Consequently, the original Family Court order was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDue processRight to counselEffective assistance of counselExclusion of partyWitness traumaFamily Court ActAppellate reviewPrima facie case
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Greiner

The petitioner, Robinson Rodriguez, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1998 New York State Supreme Court conviction for first-degree sodomy. He argued that his due process rights were violated due to insufficient corroboration of the victim's unsworn testimony and overall insufficient evidence. The court, presided over by District Judge Gershon, reviewed the evidence presented at trial, including medical testimony, prompt outcry evidence, and the petitioner's statements to the police. Ultimately, the court concluded that the victim's unsworn testimony was sufficiently corroborated and that a rational trier of fact could have found the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition was denied, and a certificate of appealability was also denied.

Habeas CorpusSodomyChild Sexual AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceCorroborationUnsworn TestimonyAutistic VictimDue ProcessFederal PetitionState Conviction
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 4,471 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