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

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. S7 91 Cr. 451
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1993

United States v. Marquez

This Memorandum Opinion and Order details the findings for the sentencing of defendant Flora Marquez following a Fatico hearing. Marquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin. The hearing addressed disputes regarding the quantity of narcotics involved, her role in the offense, and claims of diminished capacity. The Court determined a Base Offense Level of 32, denied adjustments for her role or diminished capacity, and allowed only a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Consequently, Marquez's Total Offense Level was set at 30, with a Criminal History Category of I, leading to a sentencing guideline range of 97-121 months.

Criminal LawSentencing GuidelinesDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionCocaine DistributionFatico HearingRelevant ConductBase Offense LevelDiminished CapacityAcceptance of Responsibility
References
21
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05850
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2025

People v. Flanigan

Defendant Razeah S. Flanigan appealed convictions for assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, stemming from an incident where he fired a flare gun, injuring the victim's arm. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the weight of the evidence for the assault conviction, concluding that the victim suffered a serious physical injury due to disfigurement and protracted impairment. The court affirmed the assault conviction but found that reckless endangerment in the second degree was an erroneous lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, though harmless as it was a proper lesser included offense of another count. Ultimately, the court determined that reckless endangerment in the second degree was a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, leading to the dismissal of the reckless endangerment conviction. The judgment was modified to dismiss the conviction on count 3 and affirmed as modified.

Assault Second DegreeReckless EndangermentSerious Physical InjuryLesser Included OffenseFlare Gun InjuryCriminal Weapon PossessionJustification DefenseWeight of Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionConviction Modification
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Sessa

Defendants Michael Sessa, Victor Orena, and Pasquale Amato were convicted of racketeering, loansharking, and firearms offenses committed while conducting the affairs and warring over the leadership of the Colombo organized crime family. The court found that these mobsters thrived in and cultivated a complex, pervasive culture of crime, infesting and draining communities and industries in New York City through activities like loansharking and labor union corruption. The presiding judge emphasized that considerations of incapacitation and general deterrence overwhelmingly require harsh sentences, given the defendants' past histories as recidivists and the severe danger they pose to the community. Although the Sentencing Guidelines mandated life imprisonment, the court found them of little assistance in capturing the overall picture of the defendants' extensive criminal lives. Consequently, each defendant was sentenced to life in prison, with additional consecutive terms for firearm offenses, and substantial cumulative fines, with the court noting upward departures from the Guidelines due to the heinous nature of the offenses and the ongoing danger posed by the defendants.

RacketeeringLoansharkingFirearms OffensesOrganized CrimeColombo FamilySentencing MemorandumLife ImprisonmentCriminal EnterpriseGeneral DeterrenceIncapacitation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joan FF. v. Ivon GG.

Petitioner filed a family offense petition against respondent, alleging harassment during a late-night altercation that involved physical assault and caused bruising and pain. Family Court found respondent committed a family offense and issued a two-year order of protection. Respondent appealed, challenging the credibility of petitioner's testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court's decision, giving deference to its credibility findings and concluding that petitioner successfully established harassment in the second degree by a fair preponderance of the evidence, citing various sections of the Family Court Act and Penal Law.

Family offenseharassmentorder of protectiondomestic disputecredibility determinationappellate reviewpreponderance of evidencephysical altercationFamily Court ActPenal Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Delgado

The defendant, a woman from Colombia with a difficult past including childhood abuse, early widowhood, and financial hardship, was coerced into acting as a drug courier. She was caught at John F. Kennedy International Airport with 700 grams of heroin and pleaded guilty to importation. The court applied several guideline reductions for her minimal role, acceptance of responsibility, safety valve provisions, and stipulation to deportation, resulting in an offense level of 18. Citing her aberrational conduct, duress, physical and emotional fragility, and exceptionally difficult life, the court granted a downward departure to offense level 15, sentencing her to 18 months incarceration and a $100 special assessment.

Downward DepartureSentencing GuidelinesDrug ImportationHeroinAberrant ConductDuressVulnerabilityMitigating CircumstancesCriminal LawFederal Court
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1987

People v. Stevenson

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, one count of assault in the first degree, and two counts of assault in the second degree after repeatedly stabbing his wife and forcing his stepdaughter out a window. On appeal, the court considered whether a lesser included offense charge for reckless assault should have been given, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of intoxication to warrant it. The court also held that the conviction for assault in the second degree under the fourth count of the indictment should be reversed and dismissed as it constituted a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, and a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of both. The judgment was largely affirmed, but modified to dismiss the aforementioned assault charge.

Attempted MurderAssaultLesser Included OffenseIntoxication DefenseCriminal AppealPrior Inconsistent StatementHearsaySpousal AbuseChild EndangermentJury Charge
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2008

People v. Beauharnois

This case is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of sexual abuse, course of sexual conduct, predatory sexual assault, predatory sexual assault against a child, and endangering the welfare of a child. The conviction stemmed from a victim's testimony detailing years of sexual abuse by the defendant, corroborated by a pediatrician's expert medical testimony. On appeal, the defendant challenged the verdict's weight of evidence and argued that the course of sexual conduct conviction was a lesser included offense of predatory sexual assault. The appellate court affirmed the jury's credibility findings and the medical evidence. It modified the judgment by dismissing the conviction for course of sexual conduct as a lesser included offense, but upheld the conviction for endangering the welfare of a child and the sentences imposed.

Sexual abusePredatory sexual assaultChild endangermentLesser included offenseAppellate reviewVictim credibilityExpert medical testimonyCriminal convictionSentencingJudicial discretion
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Britt

This appeal concerns a defendant convicted in Albany County of assault in the first and second degrees and endangering the welfare of a child, following severe brain injuries and multiple fractures sustained by her six-month-old son. The defendant challenged the lower court's refusal to dismiss the top assault charge, its denial of a lesser-included offense instruction for assault in the third degree, and the severity of her sentence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding ample evidence of depraved indifference to human life, particularly given the defendant's admitted repeated abuse and prior parenting classes regarding the dangers of shaking an infant. The court also upheld the refusal to charge a lesser offense and found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing.

Child AbuseAssault First DegreeAssault Second DegreeEndangering Welfare of a ChildDepraved IndifferenceReckless AssaultLesser Included OffenseSentencing DiscretionAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 178 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