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

Peter S. v. Cheryl A. S.

The Law Guardian appealed an order from Monroe County Family Court that resolved a visitation dispute by limiting the father to supervised visitation due to a finding of sexual abuse of his daughter. The court's finding relied on the children’s out-of-court statements, the mother’s observations, and her apparent lack of motive to falsify the accusation. The Appellate Court concluded that the Law Guardian failed to preserve her challenge to the court’s consideration of the children’s statements due to a lack of objection to hearsay. Additionally, the Appellate Court rejected the Law Guardian's argument regarding insufficient corroboration, stating that Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) is not applicable to article 6 proceedings, and even if it were, the mother's observations sufficiently corroborated the children's hearsay statements. The order was unanimously affirmed without costs.

Visitation RightsChild AbuseSexual AbuseHearsayCorroborationFamily Court ActSupervised VisitationLaw GuardianAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Nieves-Andino

This is a concurring opinion by Judge Jones regarding an Appellate Division order affirming a defendant's conviction. Judge Jones agrees that the conviction should be affirmed and that the victim's (Millares) pedigree information was nontestimonial. However, he argues that Millares's statements identifying the defendant and providing his address and past conduct were testimonial under Crawford v Washington and Davis v Washington. This is because the primary purpose of Officer Doyle's interrogation, after the immediate emergency had passed, was to investigate past criminal conduct. Despite this Confrontation Clause violation, Judge Jones concludes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the detailed corroborating testimony of witness O'Carroll and other evidence presented at trial.

Confrontation ClauseTestimonial StatementsNontestimonial StatementsOngoing Emergency DoctrineHarmless ErrorSixth AmendmentCriminal ProsecutionAppellate ReviewWitness InterrogationPolice Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of L. Z., M. H. and N. U., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This document is a "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" designed for use in Texas courts. It requires the individual filing the lawsuit (plaintiff) to provide their full legal name, date of birth, home and mailing addresses, phone number, and email. The form also asks for information about financial dependents. The applicant must indicate their legal representation status, specifically if they are represented by legal aid or were deemed financially eligible but could not be taken on as a client. Additionally, the statement requires disclosure of any needs-based public benefits received. A significant portion of the form focuses on the applicant's financial situation, including monthly income sources and amounts, the total value of their property (cash, bank accounts, vehicles, other assets), and a detailed breakdown of monthly expenses such as rent, food, utilities, medical costs, and transportation. Finally, the applicant must list any outstanding debts and can attach additional supporting facts. The document concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided and stating the inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Court CostsAppeal BondIndigencyFinancial DisclosureLegal AidPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt Listing
References
1
Case No. 2015-01-0005
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2015

Howard, Yolanda v. Unum

The employee, Yolanda Howard, appealed a trial court's denial of temporary disability benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which she alleged developed due to repetitive work for her employer, Unum. The trial court initially denied her claim, finding insufficient evidence that her condition arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, noting that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record, such as a transcript or statement of evidence from the expedited hearing, which led to a presumption that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, the Board concluded that the employee did not meet the statutory requirement of showing her employment contributed more than fifty percent to her injury, especially given medical evidence provided by the employer suggesting the condition was not primarily work-related. Consequently, the trial court's decision was affirmed, and the case was remanded for any necessary further proceedings.

Carpal tunnel syndromeRepetitive stress injuryWorkers' compensationExpedited hearingMedical causationAppellate reviewRecord on appealBurden of proofPrimary causationDisability benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. New York City Transit Authority

The case involves a plaintiff who was injured while exiting a bus operated by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged the bus driver negligently closed the doors, while the defendant contended the plaintiff slipped on wet stairs. A jury found the driver negligent but determined this negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident, leading to a verdict in the defendant's favor. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and inconsistent. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the inconsistency argument was unpreserved and, in any event, the verdict was consistent with a reasonable view of the evidence. Evidence included eyewitness testimony and the plaintiff's own statement to an EMS worker, both indicating she slipped on the stairs.

Bus AccidentPassenger InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidenceWitness TestimonySpontaneous DeclarationUnpreserved Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stewart v. NYC Transit Authority

Claimant, a Brooklyn resident, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying a change of venue request to White Plains, Westchester County. The Board affirmed the denial, citing insufficient justification and imposing a $500 penalty on claimant’s counsel for an unreasonable appeal. Claimant contended the Board’s policy statement regarding venue changes was improperly promulgated. However, this issue was not preserved for review as it was not raised before the Board. Furthermore, the court found the policy statement to be an interpretive statement exempt from formal rule-making requirements under the State Administrative Procedure Act. Consequently, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Venue ChangeWorkers' Compensation BoardProcedural IssuePolicy StatementState Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewAffirmationAppellate PracticeWaiver of IssuePenalties
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Goble

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting her of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the denial of a separate trial from her husband. The court found ample evidence to establish guilt, noting the baby was continuously in her care and medical testimony confirmed injuries occurred during that period, supported by the defendant's contradictory statements. The appellate court also upheld the denial of a separate trial, ruling that claims of prejudice from a codefendant's testimony or the defendant's invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege lacked merit. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Assault Second DegreeEndangering Welfare of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceSeparate TrialCo-defendant TestimonyFifth Amendment PrivilegeChild AbuseInflicted InjuriesAppellate ReviewCriminal Conviction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of E.M. and J.M., Children

Jessica M. and Daniel M. appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights for children E.M. and J.M. Jessica raised issues regarding the admissibility of E.M.'s therapist statements, the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds and best interest, and errors in jury instructions. Daniel challenged the admissibility of E.M.'s statements and the sufficiency of evidence for best interest. The court found E.M.'s statements, detailing abuse and neglect, to be admissible and reliable. Parental rights were terminated based on findings of endangerment through conditions, conduct, and failure to comply with court orders. Evidence included a domestic disturbance, K2 drug use allegations, positive drug tests, parental instability, and E.M.'s expressed fear. The court affirmed the jury's findings against Jessica. Daniel's sufficiency complaints were not preserved, and jury charge errors were overruled. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Abuse and NeglectHearsay EvidenceChild Therapist TestimonyDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
56
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
Showing 1-10 of 22,239 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