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 Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dunlap

In a criminal appeal, the defendant was tried for a forcible sexual attack. During the trial, two jurors were excused by the court over the defendant's objection. The first juror knew the defendant's mother through work and union membership, but stated it wouldn't affect his duties. The second juror, a supervisor at General Motors, felt uncomfortable due to potential union trouble, though he didn't know the defendant's mother. The appellate court found this to be an error, stating that a juror can only be excused if "grossly unqualified" or for substantial misconduct, a burden not met in this case. The court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, concluding that there was no factual demonstration that the jurors were grossly unqualified.

Jury SelectionGrossly Unqualified JurorJuror DisqualificationImpartial VerdictNew Trial GrantedAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureForcible Sexual AttackJuror MisconductDefendant's Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

United States v. Awadallah

The case addresses the admissibility of grand juror testimony in the perjury trial of Osama Awadallah, who was indicted for allegedly false statements made during a grand jury investigation into the September 11 attacks. Awadallah's defense posited that any inaccuracies in his testimony stemmed from confusion or intimidation, leading the government to propose calling grand jurors to testify about his demeanor. The Court granted Awadallah’s motion to preclude grand jurors from offering subjective impressions regarding his state of mind (e.g., whether he appeared confused or lucid). This preclusion was based on Federal Rules of Evidence 606(b), which protects the integrity of grand jury deliberations and the privacy of jurors, and Rule 403, citing concerns about unfair prejudice and confusion of legal standards. However, the Court allowed grand jurors to testify about objective physical conditions and events during Awadallah's testimony, such as the room's layout or any threatening gestures.

PerjuryGrand Jury TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceFederal Rules of Evidence 606(b)Federal Rules of Evidence 403Lay Opinion TestimonyWitness TestimonyJudicial PreclusionDemeanor EvidenceSeptember 11 Attacks Investigation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2001

People v. Telehany

The case involves an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of felony driving while intoxicated. The core issue was the trial court's erroneous removal of a sworn juror who had a passing acquaintance with a defense witness. The appellate court found that the juror's responses did not meet the 'grossly unqualified' standard under CPL 270.35 (1), as the juror unequivocally stated their acquaintance would not affect their impartiality. The erroneous dismissal of a juror is not subject to harmless error analysis. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted.

Juror DismissalGrossly Unqualified JurorImpartial JuryJury SelectionCriminal Procedure LawAppellate ReversalDriving While IntoxicatedFelony DWINew Trial GrantedTrial Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1982

People v. McIntyre

A defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 10, 1982, convicting him of robbery. During jury deliberations, a juror recognized the defendant's sister but assured impartiality, leading the court to deny a mistrial. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no reason to disturb the trial court's decision regarding the juror's qualification under CPL 270.35. The court also declined to review an unpreserved challenge concerning the juror questioning method.

RobberyJury DeliberationsJuror ImpartialityMistrial MotionAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawJudgment AffirmedJuror DisqualificationCo-worker Recognition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Feng Ling Liu

The case concerns a motion for a new trial filed by Rui Yang and her co-defendants, Feng Ling Liu and Vanessa Bandrich, who were convicted of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud. The defendants argued for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, alleging juror misconduct by Juror 2, who purportedly lied about social media activity and exhibited bias during the trial. The Court found that Juror 2's tweets, while discussing her experience, did not delve into the substance of the case and showed no dishonesty or bias, nor did they cause prejudice to the defendants. Concluding that no manifest injustice occurred, the District Court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.

Juror misconductSocial mediaNew trial motionFed.R.Crim.P. 33Immigration fraudConspiracyJuror biasSixth AmendmentImpartial juryVoir dire
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Smith

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The appeal concerned the prosecutor's peremptory challenges during jury selection. The trial court found a pattern of intentional discrimination against black prospective jurors, specifically noting the prosecutor's inability to provide a race-neutral reason for one challenge and finding another pretextual. The appellate court focused on the prosecutor's challenge of a prospective juror based solely on his employment as a postal worker, ruling that such a reason must relate to the case facts or the juror's qualifications. Finding this explanation pretextual, the appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Jury SelectionPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ReasonEmployment-Based ChallengePretextual ExplanationRacial DiscriminationCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew TrialAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gajadhar

Defendant Winston Gajadhar was tried before a 12-member jury. During deliberations, a juror became ill, and defendant, opposing a mistrial, waived his right to a 12-person jury, requesting that deliberations continue with the remaining 11 jurors. The Supreme Court granted this request, and Gajadhar was convicted of attempted robbery and felony murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the state constitution does not permit a defendant to consent to a jury of less than 12 members. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that article I, section 2 of the state constitution, as amended in 1938, allows a noncapital criminal defendant to waive the right to a 12-person jury and consent to deliberations by 11 jurors under proper circumstances, provided the waiver is made in writing and in open court.

Jury WaiverEleven-Member JuryCriminal Procedure LawConstitutional LawJury DeliberationsTrial by JuryFelony MurderAttempted RobberyAppellate ReviewJury Substitution
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derrick v. Bergren

This case involves multiple actions stemming from a March 8, 2001, motor vehicle collision between a jury bus driven by New York State court officer Ludwicki and a vehicle owned by Bergren. The Commissioner of Jurors of Kings County owns the jury bus. Defendant Commissioner of Jurors moved to dismiss all actions against him, arguing that as a state official, actions for monetary damages should be brought in the Court of Claims. The motion also sought to dismiss plaintiff Boles's action (Action No. 2) against defendant Ludwicki, asserting it is barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. The court granted both branches of the motion, ruling that the Commissioner of Jurors is a state official and claims against him in his official capacity must be heard in the Court of Claims, and that Boles's sole remedy against Ludwicki, a coworker, is under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Motor Vehicle CollisionState Official ImmunityCourt of Claims JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCPLR 3211 Motion to DismissJudiciary LawPublic Officers LawVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorJudicial Admissions
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 59 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