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

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2005

ERNST J. v. Stone

The petitioner, a chronic schizophrenic, challenged his recommitment to a psychiatric facility under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 330.20(14) via a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He had previously pled not guilty to assault by reason of mental disease or defect and was discharged subject to an order of conditions. Following a deterioration of his mental state and a threat of sexual assault, he was recommitted. The petitioner argued that his recommitment under CPL § 330.20(14) violated equal protection and due process, as he was initially found not to suffer from a "dangerous mental disorder" or to be "mentally ill." This Court, presided over by District Judge Dearie, denied the habeas corpus application, concluding that it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to reject the petitioner’s constitutional claims, distinguishing his case from Supreme Court precedents like Foucha v. Louisiana.

Habeas CorpusCriminal Procedure LawMental Disease or DefectInsanity AcquitteeRecommitment ProceduresDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSchizophreniaOrder of ConditionsDangerous Mental Disorder
References
14
Case No. 12-CV-656(LJV)(LGF)
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. 2191 Niagara St., LLC

This case addresses the defendants' objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and an appeal of his Decision and Order, arising from a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The central issue is whether New York Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from retaining gratuities or purported gratuities, is preempted by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) or the FLSA. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's findings, concluding that compliance with both federal and state law is possible, particularly by providing a required disclosure to customers. The court found no impossibility or obstacle preemption. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was recommitted for further proceedings.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGratuities RetentionService Charges DistributionFederal PreemptionSupremacy ClauseInternal Revenue Code ComplianceMagistrate Judge ReviewMotion for Judgment on PleadingsStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc.

Alicia Briggs, a pro se plaintiff, sued Women in Need, Inc. (WIN) for alleged violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, claiming unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and related medical conditions. Briggs went on medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy, gave birth via C-section, and was later informed she was terminated after requesting a specific shift upon her return. WIN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Briggs refused her assigned schedule. The Court denied WIN's motion, finding Briggs had plausibly alleged a prima facie case of discrimination, citing the close temporal proximity between her pregnancy and termination, and her qualifications for the role. The matter was recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of discovery and pre-trial matters.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissPrima Facie CaseCivil Rights ActFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewHigh-Risk Pregnancy
References
45
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03392
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of State of New York v. Anthony R.

This case concerns the appeal of an order civilly committing Anthony R. as a dangerous sex offender under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Anthony R. had a history of sex offenses and prior confinement, followed by release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). After a period of compliance, he violated SIST conditions due to changes in his medication and treatment. The Supreme Court ordered his recommitment based on these violations, including substance abuse and aggressive non-sexual behavior. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the State failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Anthony R. is *presently unable* to control his sexual conduct. The court found no persuasive link between his non-sexual SIST violations and an inability to control sexual behavior. The case was remanded for a new commitment order, clarifying that Anthony R. requires continued strict and intensive supervision, but not confinement.

Mental Hygiene LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentSISTMental AbnormalityDangerousness AssessmentControl BehaviorAppellate DivisionReversalRemand
References
6
Showing 1-5 of 5 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