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 Nicole G.

The Rockland County Department of Social Services appealed two Family Court orders concerning child protective proceedings against Nicole G. and Daniella G., which had denied petitions and dismissed the proceedings. The appeal affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Nicole G.'s out-of-court statements regarding her father's alleged abuse were insufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Although witnesses cross-corroborated each other's testimony and Nicole G. provided a narrative, she refused to testify. An expert witness also failed to provide the necessary corroborating evidence with a reasonable degree of certainty. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingsFamily Court Act Article 10Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of StatementsOut-of-Court StatementsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding HearingAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evan Y.

The Family Court of Tioga County found a child, born in 1994, to be abused by his father (respondent) based on the child's out-of-court statements of being repeatedly fondled and exhibited troubling behaviors such as sexual acting out, nightmares, bed-wetting, and suicidal tendencies. Petitioner initiated this child abuse proceeding, and the respondent, who had a prior neglect adjudication, chose not to testify at the fact-finding hearing. Expert witnesses, clinical social workers Mary Bado and Sarah Walsh, provided corroborating testimony that the child's behaviors were consistent with sexual abuse. Family Court credited this expert testimony and found sufficient corroboration for the child's statements. The respondent appealed the finding of sexual abuse, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, noting the permissible inference against the non-testifying respondent and the ample corroborative evidence from the expert witnesses.

child abusesexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10corroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild witnessesappellate reviewparental rightssexual acting out
References
9
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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Graham

Defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, stemming from incidents at the Albany County Airport on March 8, 1984. The complainant alleged that after meeting the defendant for a drug transaction, he raped and sodomized her at knifepoint in his car, with his brother-in-law present. She initially provided false details to police to conceal her intent to purchase drugs but later corrected her statement, which was corroborated by the brother-in-law who received immunity. The defendant denied any involvement, claiming only a casual acquaintance. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to provide the complainant's psychiatric history, alleged insufficient corroboration for the accomplice's testimony, claimed denial of exculpatory material, cited juror misconduct, and argued against the admission of certain witness testimony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the psychiatric records, sufficient corroboration, that any exculpatory evidence would not have altered the verdict, and that the trial court correctly denied a mistrial. Additionally, the court found the admission of certain testimony to be harmless error and upheld the consecutive sentences of 12.5 to 25 years given the heinous nature of the crimes and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeAlbany County Airport IncidentWitness CredibilityPsychiatric HistoryAccomplice TestimonyCorroboration CPL 60.22Brady ViolationExculpatory MaterialJuror Misconduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2002

In Re the United States for Material Witness Warrant

This Opinion and Order addresses the Court's authority to investigate potential government misrepresentations in the case of Abdallah Higazy, a prospective grand jury witness. Higazy was detained as a material witness after a transceiver was allegedly found in his hotel room and he purportedly confessed during a polygraph test, both of which later proved false. The Court determined it lacked criminal contempt jurisdiction over the FBI agent's conduct but affirmed its inherent supervisory power to inquire into and publicize the truth of such misconduct. The Court ordered the Government to complete its internal investigation and report findings by October 31, 2002, while directing the unsealing of most case documents, subject to government-proposed redactions by August 9, 2002, to protect grand jury secrecy. The government's internal investigation reports were ordered to remain sealed.

Material WitnessGrand Jury InvestigationFBI MisconductFalse ConfessionJudicial Supervisory PowerCriminal ContemptUnsealing DocumentsGovernment MisrepresentationsPolygraph TestSeptember 11 Investigation
References
16
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ837434
Regular
Oct 14, 2008

JESUS URIBE vs. MOSS PRECISION, INC., ONE BEACON INSURANCE

This case involves a worker's claim for industrial injury to his low back which was denied. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing substantial evidence supported his claim and he was a credible witness despite past injuries. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that the applicant was not a credible witness due to significant inconsistencies regarding prior injuries and treatment. This lack of credibility, combined with insufficient corroborating medical evidence for the claimed industrial injury, led to the denial.

AOE/COEcredibility determinationpanel qualified medical examinerprior injuriesautomobile accidentdeposition testimonymedical treatmentwork status reportslumbar strainfunctional overlay
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

In re Laura W.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in New York County that prohibited a father from having any visitation or direct contact with his daughter for 18 months, following a finding of sexual abuse. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order. The decision highlighted that unsworn out-of-court statements from the victim are admissible in child protective proceedings if corroborated by other reliable evidence. In this instance, substantial medical evidence indicating an enlarged vaginal opening and the absence of a hymen, along with validation testimony from social workers detailing the child's behavioral symptoms consistent with posttraumatic stress syndrome, provided sufficient corroboration. The court also upheld the qualification of expert witnesses and the decision to forgo an additional validation interview, noting that the 18-month period of the protective order had passed, rendering arguments regarding its length moot.

sexual abusechild protectionfamily lawvisitation rightsexpert testimonycorroborationhearsay evidencemedical evidencesocial worker testimonyposttraumatic stress syndrome
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Linzy

The case involves an appeal against a conviction for rape in the first degree, focusing on the sufficiency of corroborating evidence and the adequacy of jury instructions. The appellant contended that the complainant's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration of identity and that the trial court erred in its charge regarding exhibits as corroboration. The majority affirmed the conviction, finding ample corroboration from the complainant's observations and identification, supported by physical evidence. However, the dissenting judges argued that the corroborative evidence was weak and the confusing jury charge on corroboration led to a speculative verdict, necessitating a new trial.

Rape (First Degree)CorroborationJury InstructionsCriminal AppealWitness IdentificationPhysical EvidencePenal LawDue ProcessAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,014 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