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. Index No. 524963/19
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St., LLC

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying plaintiff Fabian Pillco's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) in a personal injury action. The core issue was the admissibility of the plaintiff's medical record statement describing the accident, which differed from his deposition testimony. The court held that the statement, recorded by Dr. Daniel Khaimov at Precision Pain, was germane to diagnosis and treatment, thus admissible under the business records exception. This created a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's occurrence, despite the plaintiff being the sole witness. The decision provides guidance on the admissibility of patient statements within medical records when relevant to medical care.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Records ExceptionMedical Records AdmissibilityLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentCredibilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Object
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allman v. UMG Recordings

Plaintiffs, members of the Allman Brothers Band, sued UMG Recordings, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging unpaid royalties for the period of January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2003. UMG removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court examined the recording agreements from 1985 and 1994, which included "Objection Provisions" and "Limitation Provisions" requiring written objections within two years and commencing suit within three years, respectively. The court found that Plaintiffs' objections and subsequent lawsuit were untimely for most statements, and no exceptions like waiver or equitable estoppel applied. Consequently, the court granted UMG's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Breach of contractRoyalty paymentsRecording agreementsSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsContractual limitation periodWaiverEquitable estoppelTimeliness of claimsMusic industry law
References
29
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

50 Lefferts LLC v. Cole

This case involves a holdover proceeding initiated by a petitioner landlord against Shaniquca Cole, who claims succession rights to a rent-stabilized apartment after the death of the tenant of record, Thelma Williams, on June 10, 2013. Cole asserts she was a member of Williams' immediate family and that the apartment was their primary residence for two years prior to Williams' death. The core issue is the admissibility of Williams' hospital records, offered by the petitioner, which contain statements from which adverse inferences about Cole's residency could be drawn. Respondent objected to these records as hearsay, but the court, referencing relevant case law, ruled that discharge planning statements within hospital records are admissible as part of a patient's treatment. The court denied the respondent's motion to bar the evidence, emphasizing that admissibility does not equate to probative weight.

Holdover proceedingSuccession rightsRent stabilizationHospital recordsHearsay exceptionBusiness recordsDischarge planMedical evidencePrimary residenceTenant rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McHugh

The defendant, Michael McHugh, is on trial for manslaughter and reckless driving. The District Attorney sought to introduce testimony from registered nurses and a certified social worker concerning admissions made by McHugh in his Montefiore Hospital records. McHugh moved to prohibit this testimony, citing doctor-nurse (CPLR 4504) and social worker (CPLR 4508) privileges. The District Attorney argued that McHugh waived the privilege or that the statements were not privileged. The court first ruled that McHugh's limited use of hospital records during a CPL 710.30 suppression hearing, solely to demonstrate medical condition relevant to the voluntariness of statements, did not constitute a complete waiver of privilege. Subsequently, the court concluded that the statements to the nurses and social worker were made in a professional capacity, necessary for treatment, and intended to be confidential, thus establishing the existence of the privilege. Therefore, the defendant's claim of privilege was granted, and the testimony was prohibited.

Doctor-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeEvidentiary RulingSuppression HearingConfidential CommunicationsMedical Records AdmissibilityCriminal ProcedureCPLR 4504CPLR 4508
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Moore

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of reckless assault of an 11-month-old child, who suffered a traumatic brain injury. The defendant admitted to shaking the child, leading to charges and conviction. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of severance motions, argued that his statement to police was involuntary and should have been electronically recorded, and contested the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding no grounds for severance, no duress in the defendant's statement, and no legal requirement for electronic recording. The court also concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient and the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion, given the heinous nature of the crime and the defendant's violent history.

Reckless assaultChild assaultChild abuseTraumatic brain injuryCriminal appealSeverance motionPolice statement admissibilityElectronic recording of confessionsSufficiency of evidenceSentencing review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2009

Lewis v. Caputo

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a false arrest claim. The plaintiff was arrested for criminal possession of a stolen laptop after a coworker recorded incriminating statements. The New York County District Attorney charged the plaintiff, but the charge was later dismissed. The plaintiff then sued Joseph Caputo, a deputy inspector general, for false arrest and was awarded $50,000 by a jury. The dissenting judge argues that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on circumstantial evidence, including the plaintiff's recorded conversation expressing anger at "snitches" and his tearing up a written statement. The dissenting opinion asserts that the jury's verdict should be reversed and the complaint dismissed because the evidence established probable cause as a matter of law.

False ArrestProbable CauseStolen PropertyCriminal PossessionCircumstantial EvidencePolice InvestigationJury VerdictCivil SuitNew York CountyDissenting Opinion
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 4,819 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