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
Nov 03, 1978

People v. Murray

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered a judgment on November 3, 1978, convicting the defendant-appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which led to an appeal. The defendant failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance during pretrial proceedings but subsequently returned and entered a guilty plea. Initial discussions regarding a plea for a one-year minimum sentence were deemed conditional and non-binding due to the defendant's abscondence. The defendant ultimately entered a plea with the understanding of a three-year minimum sentence, with a provision for withdrawal if the probation report suggested a harsher punishment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, highlighting the defendant's prior arrests for drug-related offenses and emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial rules against flouting court directives.

Criminal LawPlea BargainAbscondingControlled SubstanceAppellate ReviewSentencingJudicial DiscretionWithdrawal of PleaProbation ReportBronx County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1999

People v. Abdul

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to a term of 2 to 6 years. The judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court determined that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and there was no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations. The court properly denied the defendant’s preclusion motion regarding a statement made to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, finding no evidence that EMS workers acted as police agents and that the inquiry was not an interrogation. The appellate court also found no basis for a reduction of the sentence and rejected the defendant's remaining claims.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesJury TrialEvidence SufficiencyPreclusion MotionPolice AgencyInterrogationSentence ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New York State Office of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Services & Ortiz

Victor Ortiz, an employee of New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) and a member of PEF, was terminated for failing to maintain his required CASAC certification. OASAS did not follow the disciplinary procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between PEF and the state, asserting that his failure to maintain certification automatically disqualified him. Ortiz, represented by PEF, filed a grievance, arguing his termination violated articles 33 and 39 of the CBA. When OASAS and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations maintained that the grievance process was inapplicable, respondents served a notice of intention to arbitrate. Petitioners sought to permanently stay arbitration in Supreme Court, but their petition was dismissed, and respondents' cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the CBA's disciplinary procedures, falls within the arbitration clause of article 34 of the CBA. The court emphasized that it is for an arbitrator to determine if article 33 of the CBA applies to terminations due to loss of required certification.

Public Sector EmploymentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationProfessional CertificationDisciplinary ProcedureGrievance ProcessAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hinkein

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Columbia County, rendered on February 15, 2001, convicting her of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child following a guilty plea. The defendant argued that the County Court erred in accepting her plea without first conducting a competency examination under CPL 730.20, given her history of manic depression. However, the Appellate Division found that the County Court did not abuse its discretion, citing correspondence from social workers indicating no mental status abnormalities and the defendant's capable responses during the plea colloquy. The appellate court also determined that the imposed sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, considering the defendant's criminal history and her use of a 12-year-old child as a drug courier. Consequently, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

Criminal sale of controlled substanceEndangering welfare of childGuilty pleaCompetency issueCPL 730.20Second felony offenderConcurrent sentenceManic depressionMental health assessmentAppellate review
References
13
Case No. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

JERRY CHAVEZ, Jr. vs. CITY OF VERNON

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06534
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Stevens v. Carey

The father, Robert Stevens, appealed from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County, entered August 23, 2019, which dismissed his petition to modify a prior order of custody and parental access. The Family Court had dismissed the petition without prejudice, awaiting a comprehensive substance abuse evaluation from the father. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father failed to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the parental access arrangements and had not addressed his substance abuse and mental health issues.

Custody ModificationParental AccessFamily Court AppealSubstance Abuse EvaluationChange in CircumstancesBest Interests of the ChildAppellate DivisionDismissal Without PrejudiceChild Custody
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. Barnhart

Robert Sweeney, the claimant, appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Sweeney alleged disability due to depression, but also had a significant history of alcohol and substance abuse, which led to job termination and arrests. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that while Sweeney had severe impairments, his drug and alcohol addiction was a material contributing factor to his disability. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that without the effects of substance abuse, Sweeney retained the capacity to perform his past relevant work, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSubstance AbuseAlcohol DependenceDepressionAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityMental Impairment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2001

Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority

The plaintiff allegedly slipped on an oily, yellowish substance on a roof landing near a renovation site being worked on by Marte Construction, Ltd. There was evidence that Marte used similar oily substances in their construction project and their workers frequently used the area. Although Marte claimed the area was cleaned, no evidence suggested others used the stairs after their crew left. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied Marte's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding circumstantial evidence suggested Marte could have created the dangerous condition, thus raising an issue of fact for trial.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction Site AccidentSlippery SubstanceCircumstantial EvidenceIssue of FactAppellate AffirmationDenial of Motion
References
3
Case No. 157 AD3d 576
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Wiscovitch v. Lend Lease (U.S.) Constr. LMB Inc.

Plaintiff, a steelworker, was injured while disassembling safety protections over an elevator shaft opening. He testified that his foot slipped on an oily substance on the floor, causing a plank he was removing to fall into the opening, dragging him towards it and striking his neck. The plaintiff was stopped from falling completely by a safety cable, but sustained neck and back injuries. The court affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the unsecured cribbing and planking constituted an inadequate safety device, which could be found by a trier of fact to be a proximate cause of the injuries. This was valid even if an oily substance also contributed to the accident, as there can be multiple proximate causes.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentFall AccidentSafety DeviceProximate CauseConstruction AccidentSteelworkerElevator ShaftUnsecured PlankOily Substance
References
4
Case No. ADJ9870999
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ROBIN SMITH vs. CITY OF SUNNYVALE

This case involves a firefighter claiming breast cancer arose from employment exposure to carcinogens, triggering a statutory presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.1. The employer sought to rebut this presumption by arguing a medical examiner found no studies linking applicant's specific exposures to breast cancer. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the employer failed to prove there is *no reasonable link* between workplace carcinogen exposure and the applicant's cancer, a higher bar than simply the absence of direct scientific studies. The Board reiterated that an employer must affirmatively demonstrate a lack of reasonable connection, not just highlight a lack of studies supporting causation.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of industrial causationpublic safety officerfirefightercarcinogen exposurebreast cancerdisputable presumptioncontroverted evidencereasonable linkburden of proof
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 225 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