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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01897 [215 AD3d 751]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Matter of Podell v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment

The petitioner, Kate Podell, sought to challenge an "indicated" report of child maltreatment filed against her with the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. The report alleged that while working at a day care, Podell left a 22-month-old child unsupervised on a playground. After the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) denied her application to amend and seal the report, Podell initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for review. The Appellate Division ultimately confirmed OCFS's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseCentral RegisterFair HearingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceDay Care WorkerUnsupervised ChildAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archer v. Carrion

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. The petitioner sought to expunge a report from the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, but the application was denied. The court confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the petitioner, a daycare worker, failed to adequately supervise a 22-month-old child who subsequently wandered onto a busy road due to unsafe daycare premises. The petitioner's arguments regarding the denial of the opportunity to examine a caseworker were deemed waived, and the exclusion of unemployment benefits evidence was found to be irrelevant to the charges.

Child AbuseChild MaltreatmentExpungementDaycare SupervisionAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWaiver of ClaimsAdmissibility of Evidence
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift v. Swift

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner-mother from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted the respondent-father unsupervised visitation rights with their two children. The petitioner alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, Sarah, by the respondent, leading to a temporary order for supervised visitation. Despite two reports to the State Child Abuse Hotline, which were deemed unfounded after investigation, the petitioner sought termination of visitation. The Family Court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof regarding the sexual abuse allegations, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings and its reasons for rejecting corroborating "validation evidence," noting concerns about the petitioner's influence, the social worker's inexperience, and the context of contested custody litigation.

Child VisitationSexual Abuse AllegationsCredibility FindingsHearsay CorroborationValidation EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court OrderParental HostilityChild Custody LitigationExpert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diana G-D v. Bedford Central School District

Diana G-D, a third-grader, was allegedly sexually abused by her stepfather, Cesar Joel Sagastume Morales, between December 2005 and August 2006. Her mother, Ann D., learned of the abuse in August 2006 and reported it to the police, leading to Sagastume Morales's eventual conviction. Diana G-D, through her mother, sued the Bedford Central School District, principal Victoria Graboski, and school psychologist Kelly Cieslinski-Schleuter for negligence in failing to report suspected abuse as required by Social Services Law § 413. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to report based on the available information and that any failure was not 'knowing and willful.' The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no 'reasonable cause' to suspect abuse that would trigger a mandatory reporting duty.

Child abuseSexual abuseNegligenceSocial Services LawMandatory reportingSchool liabilitySummary judgmentReasonable causeKnowing and willful failureQualified immunity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Perales

The petitioner sought to expunge a 1976 child abuse report from the State Central Register, which alleged that her children were left bound and unsupervised, arguing it was irrelevant to her current child care employment. This challenge was initiated via a CPLR article 78 petition and transferred to the Appellate Division. An Administrative Law Judge had previously expunged two later reports but maintained the 1976 report. The court confirmed the respondents' determination, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the petitioner's serious lack of judgment in 1976 remained relevant to child care. Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's due process argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Child Abuse ReportState Central RegisterExpungementChild Care EmploymentAdministrative Law JudgeDue ProcessCPLR Article 78Social Services LawAppellate ReviewRehabilitation
References
1
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 7,896 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