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
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, which found that the mother, Rosemarie H., permanently neglected her child, Sean P.H., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody to Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services. The mother's contentions regarding deprivation of her right to be present and ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected, as her due process rights were met and she received meaningful representation. The court found clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect due to her failure to plan for the child's return and comply with the service plan, and determined that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFamily LawAppealsDue Process RightsLegal RepresentationFoster Care SystemGuardianshipAdoptionService Plan
References
23
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miraglia v. H&L Holding Corp.

This opinion addresses post-judgment motions in a personal injury case arising from an accident where the plaintiff, an employee of Lane & Sons Construction Corp., was injured at a site owned by H&L Holding Corporation. Following a jury verdict and appellate modification, Lane moved to amend the May 4, 2005 judgment to provide for entry of judgment solely against H&L, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 prevented direct recovery against Lane by the plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-moved for an order of attachment or a constructive trust on proceeds paid to H&L by its insurer. H&L cross-moved to amend the judgment to reflect its right to judgment over against Lane for the full amount and for defense costs, based on contractual and common-law indemnification, given Lane had agreed to indemnify H&L and assumed its defense at trial. The court denied Lane's motion, ruling that amending the judgment would affect a substantial right of the plaintiff and go beyond ministerial correction permitted by CPLR 5019 (a). Plaintiff's cross-motion was also denied. H&L's cross-motion for reimbursement of costs and attorneys' fees from Lane was granted, and a hearing was scheduled to determine the amount.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor LawCPLR 5019(a)IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationPost-Judgment MotionsAmendment of JudgmentNondelegable DutyOwner Liability
References
19
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04692
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2025

Matter of Kaius A. v. Abigail H.

Respondent Abigail H. appealed a Family Court order finding her guilty of neglecting her three children. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the neglect finding and dismissed the petition. The court held that the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, citing conflicting witness testimonies and a lack of corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the court found that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to ACS's untimely filing of the petition and that the mother was deprived of her due process rights. The decision also highlighted that the Family Court unduly relied on contradictory testimony and improperly based its finding on allegations not included in the petition, while disregarding the mother's uncontroverted testimony.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue Process ViolationSubject Matter JurisdictionBurden of ProofCredibility AssessmentSufficiency of EvidenceParental RightsChild Protective Services
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05656 [174 AD3d 704]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Matter of Linda H.A. (Belluci)

In this case, Linda H.A. appealed a Supreme Court judgment that appointed an independent guardian for her person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The proceeding was initiated by the Executive Director of North Shore University Hospital, alleging Linda H.A. was an incapacitated person requiring a guardian. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding clear and convincing evidence of Linda H.A.'s incapacity. The court based its decision on testimony revealing her inability to provide for personal needs and property management, delusional beliefs, a history of eviction, and refusal of medical and housing assistance.

GuardianshipIncapacitationMental Hygiene Law Article 81Appellate ReviewPersonal Needs ManagementProperty ManagementClear and Convincing EvidenceDelusional BeliefsEviction HistoryRefusal of Care
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,956 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