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

Capozzi v. Whitman

This case involves an Article 78 application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Municipal Court. The petitioner, acting as a landlord, sought to prevent the Municipal Court from vacating a final order and warrant of eviction previously issued in a summary proceeding. The tenant had moved to set aside the final order, citing fraud or mistake. The court ruled that it possesses inherent power to vacate its own judgments or final orders in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner was found to have an adequate remedy through appeal. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Article 78Writ of ProhibitionSummary ProceedingVacating Final OrderInherent Court PowerAppellate RemedyLandlord-Tenant DisputeFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceMunicipal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Human Resources Administration v. Carey

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of a writ of prohibition. The petitioner, the City Human Resources Administration (HRA), sought to vacate a Supreme Court order regarding defendant Delgado, who was charged with arson. Delgado was found by two psychiatrists to be an incapacitated person unable to stand trial due to a severe hearing defect. The lower court, misinterpreting CPL article 730, ruled that Delgado's physical incapacity did not fall under the statute and ordered his placement with HRA and the Department of Social Services. The appellate court granted the writ of prohibition, vacating the lower court's order for exceeding its jurisdiction. The court declared Delgado incompetent to stand trial *nunc pro tunc* and committed him to the custody of the New York State Commissioner of Mental Health, clarifying that CPL 730.10 broadly applies to any mental defect causing incapacity, regardless of its source. The decision emphasized that the statute does not distinguish between different sources of disability once a finding of incapacity is made.

Incompetency to Stand TrialWrit of ProhibitionMental IncapacityCriminal Procedure LawJurisdiction DisputeArson Third DegreeDue ProcessCommitment OrderAppellate ReviewPhysical Impairment
References
1
Case No. 5338/93
Regular Panel Decision

Renzulli v. McElrath

The petitioner-mother, Nora Renzulli, sought a writ of prohibition against Family Court Judge Terrence McElrath, claiming the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody matter. The Supreme Court, through a Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO) Radin, had previously awarded custody to the mother, though this was not explicitly memorialized in the final divorce judgments. The Family Court assumed jurisdiction under Family Court Act § 651 (b) and awarded temporary custody to the father. The petitioner also sought civil damages against the Family Court Judge. The Supreme Court (Maltese, J.) acknowledged the prior Supreme Court custody award but found the Family Court had concurrent jurisdiction under Family Court Act § 652 (b) because the Supreme Court judgments did not reserve exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion for a writ of prohibition and the request for damages were denied.

Writ of ProhibitionFamily Court JurisdictionChild CustodyConcurrent JurisdictionJudicial ImmunityChild Support ArrearsMarital DissolutionSupreme CourtProcedural LawChild's Best Interest
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Atkinson v. City of New York

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the City of New York. The petitioner sought to prevent the City from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on an award received through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition and prohibited the lien. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court reiterating that Workers’ Compensation liens are applicable only against recoveries from third-party tortfeasors responsible for injuries, as per Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. The court determined that the vaccine injury award did not constitute such a recovery, thus precluding the lien. The case Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. was distinguished as involving an award against a tortfeasor under the Military Claims Act.

Workers' Compensation LienNational Vaccine Injury Compensation ProgramCPLR Article 78Third-Party TortfeasorAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLien ProhibitionVaccine Injury AwardMilitary Claims ActNew York Appellate Courts
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Osorio v. Conway

Carlos Osorio, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1999 New York state conviction for various crimes, including burglary and robbery. He argued insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions on identification, erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court, presided over by Judge Chin, denied the petition. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, the jury charge was proper, and the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not violate due process and Osorio's counsel provided effective assistance, having conveyed plea offers and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding an alibi defense. Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidencePretrial IdentificationDue ProcessCriminal ProcedureState ConvictionFederal Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parson v. Portuondo

Petitioner Jerry E. Parson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. He objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his petition, arguing his reply brief was overlooked. The District Court conducted a full review, addressing Parson's claims of alibi defense preclusion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the alibi claim procedurally barred and lacking actual prejudice, and determined that the Appellate Division's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to established federal law. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a certificate of appealability was withheld.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselalibi defenseprocedural defaultactual prejudiceconstitutional rightsfederal reviewcriminal procedurejudicial reviewconviction
References
16
Case No. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1974

People ex rel. Price v. Warden of New York City Correctional Institution

The relator, an inmate at the New York City Correctional Institution for Men on Riker's Island, was segregated after an anonymous note indicated a threat to homosexual prisoners. Following an interview and investigation confirming his homosexuality, and his refusal to transfer to segregated housing, he was placed in punitive then administrative segregation. A three-man board hearing preceded his administrative segregation. The court, acknowledging the prison's exigent situation and existing problems within correctional facilities, determined that due process was substantially afforded. Consequently, the Supreme Court, Bronx County's judgment dismissing the relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed.

HomosexualityInmate SegregationPunitive SegregationAdministrative SegregationDue ProcessHabeas CorpusCorrectional FacilitiesRiker's IslandInmate RightsPrison Administration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Kimble v. McGinnis

Joseph Kimble, a pro se petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 Erie County conviction for murder, robbery, and weapon possession. Kimble argued he was deprived of a fair trial due to the jury's inadvertent viewing of a brief autopsy videotape of the naked victim during trial. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended denying the petition, finding that although the incident was careless, it did not amount to a due process violation given its brevity, lack of gruesomeness, and the curative instructions provided to the jury. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

habeas corpusdue processfair trialevidentiary errorautopsy videojury instructionprosecutorial misconductcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction challengerobbery conviction challenge
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Youngblood v. Brown

Pro se petitioner Eugene Youngblood seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 New York conviction for two counts of Robbery in the First Degree. Youngblood raises eight claims, including a defective indictment, Batson violations during jury selection, improper exclusion of evidence, Sixth Amendment confrontation clause violations, erroneous admission of uncharged criminal conduct, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The District Court, applying AEDPA standards, finds each of Youngblood's claims to be without merit or not warranting habeas relief. Consequently, the petition for habeas corpus is denied, and a certificate of appealability is declined.

habeas corpusRobbery First DegreeBatson challengeineffective assistance of counselprosecutorial misconductsufficiency of evidenceSixth Amendmentdue processjury selectionfelony conviction
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 570 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