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

Joselyn D. v. Oscar O.

Oscar O. died before the birth of his child with Joselyn D., prompting a paternity petition. Family Court Act § 518 seemingly mandated abatement of the petition upon the father's death. However, the court interpreted the statute in a gender-neutral manner to defeat abatement, citing constitutional equal protection concerns. The court concluded that a gender-neutral reading better serves the legislative intent of expanding paternity proceeding opportunities and eliminating distinctions between marital and non-marital children. A finding of paternity was made based on clear and convincing evidence. The court also urged the Legislature to amend FCA § 518 to be explicitly gender-neutral.

PaternityGender NeutralityEqual ProtectionStatutory ConstructionAbatement of ActionFamily LawConstitutional LawNon-marital Children's RightsStatutory InterpretationJudicial Activism
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mancini

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed a judgment convicting the defendant of robbery in the first degree, sentencing him as a second violent felony offender. The Court specifically affirmed the ruling from a Batson hearing where the prosecution provided race-neutral explanations for exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection. The prosecutor's criteria for juror selection were based on age, marital status, education level, and profession (avoiding teachers due to personal negative experiences). The Court found the explanations race-neutral and that the defense failed to demonstrate pretext, also recalling and vacating a prior order.

Jury SelectionBatson ChallengePeremptory ChallengesRace-Neutral ExplanationRobberyAppellate ReviewConviction AffirmedSecond Violent Felony OffenderVoir Dire
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03532
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2019

People v. Teran

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting Raymond Teran of criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence, including both personal sales and accessorial liability. The court also upheld the denial of the defendant's Batson application, determining that the prosecutor provided valid race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges. Additionally, the defendant's Brady arguments regarding disclosure of police witness civil cases were deemed unavailing due to timely and extensive disclosures. A concurring opinion, however, expressed reservations about the plausibility of some race-neutral reasons provided for the peremptory challenges.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesDrug OffensesJury TrialVerdict WeightAccessorial LiabilityBatson ClaimPeremptory ChallengesRacial DiscriminationBrady Violation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bennett

The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment in Kings County, where he was convicted of murder and weapon possession. The appellate court had previously remitted the case to examine the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges during jury selection. While most of the prosecutor's explanations for striking potential jurors were deemed race-neutral, three African-American women were challenged for reasons found to be pretextual and discriminatory. These included disparate treatment regarding attire, a challenge based on a 'liberal' profession without further inquiry, and a challenge to a social worker that lacked a case-specific relation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, citing insufficient race-neutral explanations for the challenges.

Racial DiscriminationPeremptory ChallengesJury SelectionBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ExplanationsPretextual ReasonsDisparate TreatmentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureMurder Second Degree
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wint

This case involves an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant, Wint, of attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. Previously, the case was remanded for a Batson hearing to assess the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for peremptory challenges. Following the hearing, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's Batson objection. The appellate court reviewed the prosecutor's explanations for challenging five African-American prospective jurors, including reasons related to 'non-relation' with a son, difficulty hearing, failure to report a robbery, familiarity with the crime location, employment as social workers, and peculiar appearance. The court found that the explanations were facially race-neutral and that the defendant failed to demonstrate pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the conviction was unanimously affirmed.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationappellate reviewattempted murderassaultweapon possessionsecond felony offenderrace-neutral explanations
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration between National Union Fire Insurance v. Personnel Plus, Inc.

Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh sought judicial appointment of a neutral umpire in an arbitration dispute with respondents Personnel Plus, Inc. and Great Dane Management Services, Inc. concerning a workers' compensation liability insurance program. The respondents challenged the arbitration on grounds that Great Dane was a non-signatory, the chosen court lacked jurisdiction, and the underlying payment agreement was unenforceable under California law. The District Court, finding agency applied to Great Dane and upholding the forum-selection clause, granted National Union's petition, compelling arbitration for all claims and appointing Kevin Martin as the neutral umpire. The court also ruled that the enforceability of the payment agreement should be decided by the arbitral panel.

Arbitration AgreementUmpire AppointmentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityContractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseAgency RelationshipFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActArbitrabilityJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The petitioner alleged that the Union's picketing constituted unfair labor practices, specifically a secondary boycott, under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute arose from the Union's picketing of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's premises, where Honeywell, the primary employer, had employees maintaining computers. Despite Metropolitan establishing reserved gates for neutral employers, the Union continued picketing, preventing deliveries by other companies like Mallon and Jackson. Applying the criteria from General Electric and Carrier Corporation, the Court found reasonable cause to believe a secondary boycott was occurring as the reserved gates were used only by neutral employees whose duties were unrelated to Honeywell's normal operations. Consequently, the Court granted the injunction, restraining the Union from picketing the reserved loading platforms.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottInjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeCommon Situs PicketingReserved Gate DoctrineLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesNLRB
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tiffany M.

This opinion addresses two child sexual abuse proceedings, Matter of Tiffany M. and Matter of Allison C., focusing on the appropriateness of a 'second' expert validation interview. In Tiffany M.'s case, a 1.5-year-old child alleged physical and sexual abuse by maternal grandparents and neglect by her mother. The child was found to be emotionally fragile and in need of therapy. In Allison C.'s case, a 4.5-year-old child was allegedly sexually abused by her mother's boyfriend, with the mother failing to protect her, amidst a contentious parental divorce. The judge weighed factors including potential trauma to the child, pretrial context, the neutrality of the initial validator, and the proposed expert's qualifications. Ultimately, the application for a second validator was denied for Tiffany M. to prevent further trauma, while it was granted for Allison C. given the complex marital dispute context and concerns over the perceived neutrality of the initial validator, who was retained by the prosecuting District Attorney’s Office.

Child sexual abuseValidation interviewExpert witness testimonyFamily Court proceedingsCPLR procedureChild traumaExpert neutralityPretrial litigationLaw Guardian roleIntervenor father
References
10
Case No. ADJ9328357
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

KAREN SCHNEIDER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Karen Schneider's petition for reconsideration in case ADJ9328357. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), finding no good reason to disregard the opinion of the agreed medical evaluator. The WCJ had properly relied on the AME's expertise and neutrality. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied based on the record and the WCJ's report.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEWCJCoalinga State Hospitallegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance Funddenying reconsiderationPower v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 66 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