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. 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. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
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

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02287
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2025

Matter of Jahzara J.S. (Joshua S., Jr.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from Family Court, Bronx County, which found the respondent father neglected the subject child. The court determined that the finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The child's out-of-court statements alleging maltreatment were sufficiently corroborated by multiple disclosures to different individuals and by daycare workers' observations of significant changes in the child's demeanor and the exhibition of age-inappropriate behavior following an alleged incident. The Family Court's decision to credit the child's statements, despite minor inconsistencies, was upheld.

NeglectChild MaltreatmentOut-of-Court StatementsCorroborationPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewChild's DemeanorAge-Inappropriate BehaviorSocial Services
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06564
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Raivyn BB. (Courtney BB.)

This case concerns appeals from Family Court orders adjudicating Raivyn BB. a neglected child due to alleged parental drug use by mother Courtney BB. and father Kip AA. The child tested positive for methamphetamines after birth, prompting neglect petitions. The Appellate Division reversed the neglect findings against both parents. The court found that the evidence did not establish a direct causal link between the mother's methamphetamine use and the child's impairment, noting potential withdrawal symptoms from prescribed Subutex. Furthermore, the father's conduct, including hostility or refusal to sign a birth certificate, was not deemed to constitute neglect, and no evidence showed his knowledge of the mother's drug use. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

Neglected ChildParental Drug UseChild ToxicologyMethamphetamineSubutexFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewCausative ConnectionImpairment of ChildMinimum Degree of Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1995

In re Najam M.

The Family Court's dismissal of a child abuse petition, brought by the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian for Najam M. against her respondent father, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court reinstated the petition and entered a finding of sexual abuse, remanding the case for further proceedings. Expert medical testimony from Dr. Jamie Hoffman Rosenfeld, a child abuse specialist, detailed physical abnormalities in the child consistent with chronic manipulation and sexual abuse, which she affirmed could not be self-inflicted. The child's consistent allegations of abuse by her father, made to multiple individuals, further supported the medical findings. The court determined that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of child abuse, which the parents' explanation failed to rebut.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseFamily CourtAppellate ReversalExpert Medical TestimonyHymenal InjuryPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofChild InterviewParental Explanation Rebuttal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lai Chan v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc.

This is a class action suit where plaintiffs, current and former employees, allege violations of the Labor Law for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours wages, and failure to comply with proper notification requirements. They also assert third-party beneficiary claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, arguing the defendant failed to pay them according to the Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act and New York City’s Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, as required under the defendant's contracts with government agencies. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or compel arbitration, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and good faith reliance on administrative opinions. The court denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, finding the claims not preempted and adequately stated.

Labor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PaySpread of Hours PayWage Parity ActFair Wages for New Yorkers ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCompel ArbitrationPreemption
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 8,570 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