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. 2011RI011027, 2012RI001658
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mathurine

The case concerns the admissibility of a defendant's prior guilty plea allocution in a subsequent trial without a CPL 710.30 notice. The defendant was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle on multiple occasions. The People intended to use the allocution from an earlier guilty plea (where the defendant admitted knowing his license was suspended) to prove knowledge in the current consolidated cases. Defense counsel objected, citing lack of CPL 710.30 notice and the need for a Huntley hearing to determine voluntariness. The court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that CPL 710.30 notice is not required for presumptively voluntary, judicially supervised guilty pleas made by a represented defendant, as such pleas are not "involuntarily made" within the meaning of the statute.

criminal procedureCPL 710.30notice requirementguilty plea allocutionvoluntariness of statementsprior conviction evidenceadmissibility of evidenceVehicle and Traffic Lawaggravated unlicensed operationHuntley hearing
References
37
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Goldstein

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. He argued that his guilty plea was involuntary, citing issues with his allocution regarding depraved indifference, coercion by the court, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly given, and that the allocution adequately established the element of depraved indifference. The court also rejected the defendant's contentions regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences and the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, concluding that these arguments lacked merit. His challenge to the severity of the sentence was foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal, and the claim of ineffective counsel was unsupported by the record.

Reckless EndangermentAggravated Unlicensed OperationGuilty PleaVoluntary PleaDepraved IndifferenceConsecutive SentencesIneffective CounselAppeal WaiverCriminal LawVehicular Crimes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Miller

The petitioner, convicted of second-degree murder after a guilty plea in New York Supreme Court, sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing due process violations for the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without new counsel or an evidentiary hearing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition, concluding that there was no constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances and no actual conflict of interest regarding counsel's performance. The court found that the petitioner's allegations of coercion contradicted his prior statements during the plea allocution and that the alleged coercion by counsel amounted to professional advice. A certificate of appealability was granted on the two primary questions.

Habeas CorpusGuilty Plea WithdrawalDue ProcessIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidentiary HearingActual Conflict of InterestRule 32(e)State Court RemediesAEDPA
References
22
Case No. Ind. No. 1246/21; Appeal No. 5676; Case No. 2022-00851
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2026

Rodriguez v. CB Devs.

The defendant, Benjamin Lowman, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on February 22, 2022, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He was sentenced to a five-day jail term and a three-year conditional discharge. Defendant argued his plea was invalid because the court did not allocute him on his prior conviction, which elevated the charge to a felony, and did not arraign him on the special information. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the contention unpreserved and rejecting it on the merits as an alternative holding. The court concluded that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, noting that the special information sufficiently apprised the defendant of the elevated felony charge and he was informed of the felony at multiple junctures.

Guilty PleaVehicle and Traffic LawDUIDWIFelony ChargePrior ConvictionPlea ValiditySpecial InformationArraignmentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 1993

Burks v. Jakubowski

Plaintiff John A. Burks, Sr. filed a lawsuit against former employees and state officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging false wage claims, constitutional rights violations, and conspiracy. This action followed his guilty plea to five counts of violating New York's Labor Law for unpaid wages. Senior District Judge MeCURN, presiding in the Northern District of New York, granted summary judgment to the state defendants, Joseph Jakubowski and Florio Vitullo. The court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, ruling that Burks' prior guilty plea conclusively established his failure to pay wages, thus precluding him from relitigating this issue. Subsequently, the court sua sponte extended summary judgment to the remaining former employee defendants, Beatrice L. Hoffman, Cynthia J. Smith, and Brenda Tullis, based on the same preclusive effect of the guilty plea.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentGuilty PleaWage ClaimsLabor Law Violations42 U.S.C. Section 1983Due ProcessFirst AmendmentConspiracyHarassment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFina v. New York State Division

The petitioner challenged the New York State Board of Parole's decision to revoke his parole, extend his supervision, and incarcerate him for 18 months, stemming from a curfew violation and charges of weapon possession and fraternization. The court found that the preliminary hearing officer abused her discretion by denying an adjournment for a defense witness and that there was no probable cause for the dangerous knife charge. Furthermore, the petitioner's guilty plea to the curfew violation was deemed involuntary and unintelligent due to the undue pressure from the unsupported weapon charge and an inadequate allocution process. The court dismissed the weapon possession and fraternization charges with prejudice, vacated the curfew violation plea, and remanded the matter for a new final parole revocation hearing.

Parole RevocationCurfew ViolationWeapon PossessionDue ProcessAdministrative DiscretionPlea ValidityAllocutionWitness RightsJudicial ReviewNew York Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lasky

Defendant Clark Lasky, president of Employee Health Plan Administrators, Inc. (EHPA), was convicted in 1998 of embezzling funds from an employee welfare benefit plan and mail fraud. This stemmed from his failure to remit health benefit monies collected from employers to Local 119, Brotherhood of Industrial Workers (BIW). Lasky moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting coercion by the Government and belatedly claiming innocence. He cited a favorable civil judgment in a related case as support for his innocence. The Court denied Lasky's motion, finding his coercion claims contradicted by the extensive plea allocution record. The court concluded that his asserted innocence was a "change of heart" motivated by the favorable civil decision and apprehension about sentencing, and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary as his allegations contradicted the record.

Guilty Plea WithdrawalRule 32(e) F.R.Cr.P.Coercion ClaimVoluntariness of PleaPlea AllocutionEmbezzlementMail FraudERISA ViolationFederal Criminal ProcedureSentencing Guidelines
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1997

Rodriguez v. Hanslmaier

Andres Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge his guilty plea. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a report recommending denial of the petition. The District Court, presided over by Judge John E. Sprizzo, adopted this report and recommendation. The court found that appellate counsel's strategy to challenge only the excessive sentence, rather than the guilty plea, was reasonable given the petitioner's prior agreement and the potential risk of a murder trial with a life sentence if the plea was vacated. The court also noted that the trial judge's decision on the plea's voluntariness and counsel's effectiveness was based on in-court observations and credibility assessments, making an appeal unlikely to succeed. Consequently, Rodriguez's petition was denied with prejudice.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Counsel StrategyGuilty Plea ValidityExcessive Sentence ClaimMental CompetencyMalingering DefenseSixth AmendmentCriminal AppealFederal District Court
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 995 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