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

In re Ashley D.

This case involves appeals from two Family Court orders, both entered on May 22, 1998. The first order adjudicated the respondent's stepdaughter as abused, and the second found his two biological daughters derivatively neglected, stemming from an incident where the respondent physically and sexually assaulted his stepdaughter on October 7, 1997. On appeal, the respondent contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's findings, holding that the stepdaughter's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated and that the sexual attack constituted strong evidence for derivative neglect. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and affirmed the denial of visitation rights.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceCorroboration of StatementsDerivative NeglectSexual AssaultPhysical AssaultIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Wilinston BB

This appeal stems from a Family Court order in Albany County, adjudicating the respondent a juvenile delinquent. The respondent contested the Family Court's decision not to suppress his written confession, arguing it was involuntarily made. The appellate court, however, affirmed the Family Court's ruling, finding no evidence of coercion during police questioning and noting the appropriate handling of the respondent's mother's presence. While acknowledging certain evidentiary errors by the Family Court, the appellate panel deemed them harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the respondent's guilt. Consequently, the original order of juvenile delinquency adjudication was affirmed.

juvenile delinquencyconfessionsuppression of evidenceinvoluntary confessionFamily Court Actevidentiary rulingsharmless errorrape first degreesodomy first degreepolice questioning
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeffrey D.

Petitioner filed a petition under Family Court Act article 10, alleging child abuse and neglect of respondents' three-month-old son, Jeffrey. Initial allegations involved scalding and bruises, later supplemented with claims of numerous fractured ribs following further medical examinations. The Family Court found no abuse but adjudicated the child neglected. The mother appealed, but the Appellate Court rejected the mootness argument, citing the permanent stigma of a neglect adjudication. Based on expert medical testimony from Dr. Louise Godine, who identified nine fractured ribs indicative of forceful squeezing and determined the injuries predated the scalding, the Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's finding. The court noted the parents' failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the injuries, allowing for strong adverse inferences.

Child Neglect AdjudicationFamily Court Act Article 10Infant Rib FracturesScalding InjuriesMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence StandardMootness Doctrine ApplicationParental Explanations DiscreditedAdverse InferencesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ2704105
Regular
Aug 02, 2013

RACHEL ALEXANDER vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's dismissal of Rachel Alexander's workers' compensation case, which occurred before a merits adjudication due to her death. The Board held that the deceased applicant's death does not prevent the determination of accrued benefits for dependents or heirs under Labor Code section 4700. Dismissal without an evidentiary hearing violated due process, as workers' compensation proceedings do not allow for summary judgment motions. The case was returned for further proceedings and a decision on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissalDue ProcessLabor Code section 3202Labor Code section 4700Accrued and unpaid benefitsInjury to respiratory systemInjury to internal systemsHeadaches
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2014

Matter of Marcus JJ.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, which granted a petition to adjudicate the respondent's children neglected. The respondent, the biological mother of two sons, argued that she was not a 'person legally responsible' for the children at the time of the alleged neglect and challenged the merits of the neglect finding. The Family Court's decision was supported by evidence of the mother's inappropriate behavior, including yelling and profanities during meetings, verbal and physical threats against her older son, a positive cocaine test, and her subsequent refusal to undergo drug tests. Additionally, the children were exposed to domestic violence perpetrated against the mother by her paramour, which caused them distress. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding no merit in the respondent's contentions and substantial support in the record for the finding of neglect.

Child NeglectFamily Law AppealParental MisconductDomestic Violence ExposureDrug AbuseChild Protective ServicesParental RightsSupervised VisitsCredibility AssessmentAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1988

In re Melissa R.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate seven children as neglected. The investigation stemmed from a report to the State Central Register of Alleged Child Abuse or Maltreatment. Following a fact-finding hearing, the children were found neglected due to issues like academic struggles, chaotic home conditions, excessive corporal punishment, and a lack of care from the parents. The respondents appealed, contending that much of the proof was uncorroborated hearsay and that a "diligent plan" was not provided, but these arguments were rejected by the court. The order was affirmed.

neglectchild abusecorporal punishmentFamily Court ActSocial Services LawOtsego Countyappealtemporary removalcustodyfact-finding hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darin J. v. Tylena S.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order regarding child neglect. Petitioner Darin J. and Chenango County Department of Social Services filed petitions alleging respondent John K. exposed minor children to pornography, leading to a neglect adjudication against him and a modification of visitation rights for respondent Tylena S. (the mother). Tylena S. and John K. appealed this decision. Their appellate counsel sought to be relieved, claiming no non-frivolous issues existed, but the appellate court identified several such issues. Consequently, the appellate decision is withheld, counsels' applications to be relieved are granted, and new counsel will be assigned to address the identified issues.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActVisitation RightsOrder of ProtectionAppellate ReviewCounsel AssignmentNon-Frivolous IssuesSufficiency of EvidenceFamily AssessmentPornography Exposure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2006

In re Timothy HH.

A 14-year-old respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent by the Family Court of St. Lawrence County for criminal mischief in the fourth degree. The petitioner alleged the respondent damaged a car belonging to a St. Lawrence County Youth Advocacy Program worker who had impounded his puppies due to truancy. Respondent asserted a justification defense, believing the worker was stealing his pets. The Family Court rejected this defense and placed the respondent in the custody of the St. Lawrence County Commissioner of Social Services for one year. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the charge and disprove the justification defense, clarifying that Penal Law § 35.25 pertains to force against persons, not property.

Juvenile DelinquencyCriminal MischiefTruancyJustification DefenseFamily Court AppealProperty DamageAppellate ReviewPenal LawFamily Court ActSt. Lawrence County
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,237 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