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 Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Morel

This case involves a criminal prosecution for contempt of court, based on the defendant allegedly violating a Supreme Court order of protection, running concurrently with a civil child neglect proceeding in Family Court where the defendant also allegedly violated an interim order of protection. The defendant moved to renew and reargue a prior decision dated June 15, 2012, which had denied dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Upon reargument, the court reversed its original ruling, finding that the criminal prosecution is barred by federal constitutional double jeopardy principles. Citing Breed v Jones, the court determined that jeopardy attached when the Family Court began to hear evidence in the combined fact-finding hearing under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, especially since the defendant faced potential punitive consequences, including incarceration, in the civil proceeding. Therefore, since the factual allegations in both the criminal and civil cases are identical in part, and the defendant faces a punitive sanction in Family Court, the criminal contempt proceeding is dismissed.

Criminal ContemptDouble JeopardyFamily Court Act Article 10Orders of ProtectionChild Neglect ProceedingsFederal Constitutional LawMotion to ReargueMotion to RenewPunitive SanctionsCivil vs. Criminal Proceedings
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 1993

Telesco v. Village of Port Chester

The petitioner, a sanitation worker employed by the Village of Port Chester, sought review of a determination by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester. The Board had confirmed a Hearing Officer's finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct due to a conviction for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance and unauthorized absences, leading to his employment termination. The court found that the criminal conviction constituted misconduct and that the determination regarding unauthorized absences was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the court concluded that the termination of employment was a proportionate penalty. Therefore, the determination of the Board was confirmed, and the proceeding was dismissed.

MisconductEmployment TerminationUnauthorized AbsencesCriminal ConvictionPublic EmployeeArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessProportionality of Penalty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Roselle

The case addresses whether the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents prosecuting a defendant for assault after a Family Court found child neglect but not child abuse in an earlier child protective proceeding. The defendant allegedly caused severe burns to his three-year-old daughter. The Family Court sustained neglect based on the defendant's testimony but dismissed the abuse charge. The County Court applied collateral estoppel to dismiss the criminal charges. The appellate court reversed, holding that the District Attorney's 'necessary party' status in Family Court proceedings does not confer a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' abuse in a manner that would bar a subsequent criminal prosecution, citing differing policy considerations between civil and criminal proceedings. Thus, the indictment counts were reinstated.

Issue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelChild AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCriminal ProsecutionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessDistrict Attorney RoleCounty Attorney Role
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1993

Martin v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a permanent custodial worker, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a February 25, 1993, determination by the Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District. This determination found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position. The court confirmed the Board's determination, dismissing the petitioner's proceeding on the merits. The court ruled that Civil Service Law § 50 (4) did not bar the Board from terminating the petitioner for material misrepresentations on his employment applications, as the Board, as the employer, could bring charges under Civil Service Law § 75. Additionally, a Yonkers City Court report detailing the petitioner's criminal history was deemed properly admitted, and the Board's determination was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Article 78 ProceedingMisconductDismissal from EmploymentMaterial MisrepresentationEmployment Application FraudCivil Service LawAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceCriminal History Report
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1993

In re Charnille

The petitioner appealed an order from the Family Court, Westchester County, which denied an adoption petition for infant Charnille. The denial was based on the petitioner's inability to provide child abuse and criminal history reports from New Jersey. The appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating the petition. It held that New York law primarily requires reports from its own agencies and that the absence of New Jersey reports was not an insurmountable obstacle given the ample evidence of a stable and loving relationship between the petitioner and Charnille, supported by continuous monitoring from the authorized agency. The case was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings.

AdoptionChild WelfareFoster CareParental Rights TerminationInterstate AdoptionSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawJurisdictionBest Interests of the ChildAppellate Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,494 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