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

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

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
Mar 04, 2010

Claim of Poli v. Taconic Correctional Facility

The claimant, a correction officer, sought workers' compensation benefits after a 2007 work injury. The employer's carrier contested benefits, alleging the claimant made false statements about a prior 2006 back injury to his treating physician and an independent medical examiner, violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. After a series of reviews, the Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately found a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, rescinded prior awarded benefits, and imposed a permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of false representation.

Workers' CompensationFraudFalse StatementMaterial FactWage Replacement BenefitsDisqualificationMedical HistoryPrior InjuryCredibilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanderson v. Bellevue Maternity Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was removed from her position at Bellevue Maternity Hospital by her supervisor, Susan Fraley, following a co-worker's allegation of harassment. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the co-worker for defamation and tortious interference, and against Bellevue and Fraley for defamation and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, citing qualified privilege, and the wrongful discharge claim against Bellevue, upholding the principle of at-will employment. This appeal affirms the dismissal of the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, concluding that Fraley's statements were protected by qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice. The court also noted the abandonment of the wrongful discharge claim on appeal.

DefamationAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceRespondeat SuperiorWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHarassment AllegationEmployee Relations
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 14,474 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