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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04824
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

People v. Zubidi

The case of People v Zubidi addresses an appeal of a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment. The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the police stop of his van, the probable cause for his arrest, the suggestiveness of a lineup identification, and the excessiveness of his sentences. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction, ruling that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's van. This suspicion was based on the van's involvement in a prior road rage incident where a weapon was discharged, and a subsequent incident where the driver fled from a traffic agent. The court reasoned that a logical inference could be drawn that the vehicle's registered owner was likely its driver. When stopped, the defendant resisted, reached for a gun, and pointed it at an officer, providing probable cause for arrest. The court also found the lineup procedure not unduly suggestive. A dissenting opinion argued that reasonable suspicion was lacking due to the absence of prior visual identification of the driver matching the perpetrator's description and the attenuated nature of the owner-driver inference over time.

Criminal Possession of WeaponReckless EndangermentSuppression MotionReasonable SuspicionAutomobile StopProbable Cause for ArrestLineup IdentificationUnduly SuggestiveAppellate ReviewFourth Amendment
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1977

People v. James

On October 20, 1976, police responded to a robbery report. Officer McLernon encountered the defendant near the crime scene and, suspicious of the defendant's unsolicited statement directing officers away, patted him down. This frisk revealed a loaded .25 caliber revolver and a sawed-off shotgun. Following a suppression hearing, the Trial Term found reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the judgment. However, a dissenting opinion argued that the facts did not support reasonable suspicion for the stop or frisk, citing insufficient evidence linking the defendant to the crime and no initial fear for the officer's safety. The dissent contended the motion to suppress should have been granted.

Criminal LawFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureReasonable SuspicionStop and FriskSuppression HearingPolice ConductAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Nordin

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's decision that overturned the suspension of Nordin's driver's license. An administrative law judge (ALJ) had initially upheld the suspension following Nordin's DWI arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer results exceeding the legal limit. The trial court reversed the ALJ's decision, citing issues with evidence admission, reasonable suspicion for the stop, a continuance granted to the DPS, and the untimely filing of the suspension notice. The appeals court reversed the trial court's order, affirming the ALJ's original decision to suspend Nordin's license, finding that the evidence was admissible, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, the continuance was permissible, and the delay in filing the notice was a directory, not mandatory, requirement that did not prejudice Nordin's rights.

driver's license suspensionDWIadministrative appealintoxilyzer resultsbreath test affidavitreasonable suspicionprobable causestatutory warningsadministrative law judgeTexas Transportation Code
References
9
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1994

People v. Dickerson

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentenced as a persistent felony offender to concurrent terms of 10 years to life. The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment. The defendant's suppression motion was properly denied, as the court found reasonable suspicion justified the detention and frisk. This suspicion was based on a radio run concerning a man with a gun in a specific restaurant, corroborated by the officers' observations upon arrival, including the fact that the defendant was the only patron. Additionally, external corroboration from a man in the street and a worker in the restaurant further supported the officers' actions, which were deemed minimally intrusive.

Criminal possession of a weaponThird degree weapon possessionPersistent felony offenderSuppression motion deniedReasonable suspicionPolice detentionFriskRadio run corroborationMinimally intrusive police conductAffirmed judgment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. M2000-01760-SC-R11-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2003

State v. Gonzalo Moran Garcia

In a dissenting opinion by Justice Janice M. Holder from the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the case of State of Tennessee v. Gonzalo Moran Garcia is reviewed. The dissent criticizes the majority's application of a de novo standard of review to trial court findings, arguing that the established Odom standard requires upholding such findings unless evidence preponderates otherwise. Justice Holder asserts that the trial court correctly found Officer Kohl had reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop based on Garcia's weaving and that the subsequent detention was reasonable in both length and scope due to Garcia's evasiveness. Therefore, she concludes that Garcia's constitutional rights were not violated and his consent to search was valid, respectfully disagreeing with the majority's contrary holding.

Criminal LawConstitutional LawSearch and SeizureReasonable SuspicionInvestigatory StopDe Novo ReviewStandard of ReviewAppellate ProcedureDissenting OpinionTraffic Stop
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Ward

Judge Kaye's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's approval of a random urine testing program for the elite OCCB police unit without individualized suspicion. She argues this deviates from prior precedent, particularly *Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ.*, which required individualized reasonable suspicion for similar searches. The dissent contends that the government has not demonstrated a compelling need for such intrusive searches, citing the lack of evidence for pervasive drug use among OCCB members. Furthermore, Kaye asserts that the program lacks sufficient procedural safeguards and that the concept of 'diminished privacy expectations' for public employees cannot justify random, suspicionless searches. The dissent advocates for upholding the Appellate Division's order, which the majority reversed.

Random Drug TestingFourth AmendmentConstitutional LawSearch and SeizurePolice OfficersPublic EmployeesIndividualized SuspicionPrivacy RightsWorkplace Drug TestingDissenting Opinion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackman v. Schembri

The petitioner's dismissal from his correction officer position by the Correction Commissioner, based on a drug test, was unanimously confirmed. The court found substantial evidence to support the reasonable suspicion justifying the drug test, citing the Health Management Division physician's observations of alcohol on petitioner's breath, nasal congestion, swollen glands, throat soreness, and nystagmus, indicative of substance abuse. Additionally, the petitioner's agitated and hostile behavior in the waiting room contributed to the suspicion. The court also determined that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the refusal to grant an adjournment, as he had failed to appear for two previous hearings, his attorney could not explain his absence, and there was no indication he would appear at a later date. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the CPLR Article 78 proceeding was dismissed.

correction officer dismissaldrug testingreasonable suspiciondue processadjournment denialsubstance abusenystagmusadministrative reviewemployment terminationmedical examination findings
References
2
Case No. 06-08-00029-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2008

Stevie Walker v. State

Stevie Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, crack cocaine, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Officer Brian Pool, accompanied by Officer Travis Shirley, stopped Walker's vehicle after observing him fail to properly signal two turns. During the temporary detention, Pool discovered Walker in possession of a rock of crack cocaine. Walker contended Pool lacked specific, articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, but the court found that an officer may lawfully stop a person for a traffic violation committed in their presence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Pool had an objectively reasonable basis to detain Walker for a personally observed violation of the Texas Transportation Code.

Traffic stopMotion to suppressReasonable suspicionFourth AmendmentControlled substanceCrack cocaineTexas Transportation CodeSignalling violationPretext stopAppellate review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,623 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