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

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Campos v. Campos

This case involves an appeal by a respondent father concerning child support arrears. An initial support order was issued by default, and the arrears amount was subsequently recalculated multiple times by a Hearing Examiner. The Family Court confirmed an order setting arrears at $23,310. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that the Hearing Examiner failed to ascertain whether the respondent's income between 1990 and 1993 fell below or equaled the poverty income guidelines, as mandated by Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g). Given the respondent's documented unemployment, SSI benefits, and public assistance, the court concluded that child support arrears should not have exceeded $500 during that period. The matter was remitted for a new determination of arrears consistent with the poverty income guidelines.

Child Support ArrearsPoverty GuidelinesFamily Court ActSSI BenefitsPublic AssistanceUnemploymentPsychological ConditionRes JudicataAppellate ReviewReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Johnson

Ronald Johnson appealed a Family Court order concerning child support arrears and a willful violation finding. The appellate court found the Family Court erred by not reducing arrears to $500, citing that unpaid child support arrears should not exceed $500 when the noncustodial parent's sole income is public assistance. Additionally, the court erred in finding a willful violation, as the petitioner failed to prove Ronald Johnson had the ability to pay or intentionally avoided his obligations. Consequently, the order was modified to reduce the arrears to $500 and vacate the willful violation finding.

Child Support ArrearsWillful ViolationPublic AssistanceFamily Court ActAbility to PayEmployment SearchFinancial HardshipAppellate ReviewJudicial ModificationEvidence Burden
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Passaro v. Passaro

This case involves an appeal from an amended order of support concerning child support and arrears. The appellant, Anthony Passaro, sought to reduce child support, obtain credit against arrears, and vacate a payroll deduction order. The Family Court, Suffolk County, denied these requests. On appeal, the amended order of support was modified to decrease child support payments to $45.38 per child per week, effective October 2, 1981. Additionally, the amount of arrears due to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services was reduced to $6,832.93, after crediting the appellant for Social Security disability benefits received by the children. The court affirmed the order as modified, noting the favorable changes in both parties' financial circumstances while finding the appellant did not demonstrate a substantial unfavorable change to warrant further downward modification of child support.

Child SupportAlimonyArrearsDownward ModificationDisability BenefitsSocial SecurityFamily Court ActPayroll Deduction OrderFinancial CircumstancesAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1990

Neumark v. Neumark

In a matrimonial action, the defendant former husband appealed and the plaintiff wife cross-appealed from portions of an order and judgment concerning the division of marital assets and maintenance. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially directed the husband to convey his interest in the marital residence, pay accrued arrears of $101,535.91, and $61,369.93 in pension benefits, and reduced maintenance to $800 a month. The Appellate Court modified the order, deleting the pension benefit award and remitting for a determination of present value. Maintenance was further reduced to $500 a month, and accrued arrears for the plaintiff were adjusted to $99,255.91. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Matrimonial ActionDivorceMaintenance ArrearsPension BenefitsMarital ResidenceEquitable DistributionDownward ModificationChange of CircumstancesAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madison County Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Chafee v. Felker

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, the father of a son born in 2002, failed to pay $25 per week in child support to Mary Chafee, as mandated by a May 2007 order. The Family Court affirmed the Support Magistrate's finding of willful violation and imposed a sentence of incarceration, conditional upon payment of $3,650 in arrears. The appellate court rejected the respondent's arguments, including his inability to pay due to lack of income and his claim regarding the $500 arrears cap, citing a lack of credible evidence and his failure to seek modification of the original support order. Consequently, the Family Court's determination was affirmed.

Child SupportWillful ViolationArrearsFamily Court ActParental ObligationContempt of CourtAbility to PayModification of SupportAppeal DecisionSupport Magistrate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spitalieri v. Spitalieri

Denise Spitalieri sought to enjoin the release of funds to her ex-husband, Louis Spitalieri, to satisfy child support and maintenance arrears, arguing for an exception to the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) § 916. The court, presided over by Justice Charles A. Kuffner, Jr., denied the motion to the extent it sought to restrain workers' compensation benefits, citing the LHWCA's explicit exemption from creditor claims and the precedent set by Thibodeaux v Thibodeaux. The court reasoned that creating a judicial exception would contradict congressional intent. However, the motion was granted for funds representing Louis Spitalieri's regular wages and salary. Additionally, Denise Spitalieri was awarded a money judgment of $10,724 for unpaid child support and spousal maintenance arrears.

longshore and harbor workers' compensation actLHWCAworkers' compensation benefitsgarnishmentattachmentchild supportalimonyexemptionsupremacy clausestate law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Boland v. Boland

This postjudgment matrimonial matter concerns child support and medical insurance for a severely handicapped 24-year-old daughter. The defendant father sought to terminate his obligations, arguing the daughter receives Medicaid and should move to a residential facility. The plaintiff mother opposed and cross-moved for continued medical coverage, arrears, and counsel fees. The court found a clear contractual agreement for the father to support the child beyond age 21 due to her inability to provide for herself. The court denied the father's application, emphasizing public policy, the strong mother-daughter relationship, and the father's lack of financial hardship. The court ordered the father to continue medical coverage, pay child support arrears of $952, and awarded $4,000 in counsel fees to the mother's attorney.

Matrimonial LawChild SupportMedical InsuranceHandicapped ChildAdult Child SupportContractual ObligationMedicaidPublic PolicyParental ObligationSpecial Needs
References
6
Case No. W2012-00509-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2013

Susan Crosby Wilkinson v. Bradley Webb Wilkinson

This post-divorce case involves a dispute over transitional alimony payments outlined in a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) between Susan Crosby Wilkinson (Wife) and Bradley Webb Wilkinson (Husband). The MDA stipulated that alimony would "self-terminate" upon certain conditions, including cohabitation. Believing his former wife was cohabitating, Husband ceased alimony payments without court intervention, leading Wife to file a petition for civil contempt and seek alimony arrears and attorney's fees. The trial court, while not finding Husband in contempt, awarded Wife the requested arrears and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that a contempt finding was not a prerequisite for enforcing court orders and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees limited to the successful portions of Wife's claim. The case was remanded for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

alimonydivorcemarital dissolution agreementcohabitationcivil contemptalimony arrearsattorney's feeslachesappellate reviewabuse of discretion
References
54
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00081 [212 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2023

Merritt v. Wynder

Richard Merritt, an attorney, brought an action against Kenneth Wynder and the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) to recover legal fees, rental arrears, litigation expenses, and an unpaid loan. Merritt had previously represented Wynder in employment matters and LEEBA as its primary attorney and landlord. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed Merritt's complaint following a nonjury trial, concluding that he had failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Merritt subsequently appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the clerk's judgment. The appellate court found that Merritt did not demonstrate his entitlement to legal fees due to ambiguities in the fee agreement, and his claims for rental arrears and the unpaid loan were deemed time-barred and lacked sufficient proof of acknowledgment. Claims for litigation fees and workers' compensation fees were also rejected, citing agreement ambiguity, absence of proof, and non-compliance with Workers' Compensation Board approval requirements.

Legal Fees DisputeBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsAttorney-Client AgreementAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialWorkers' Compensation ClaimRental ArrearsUnpaid LoanEvidence Preponderance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spiegel v. Spiegel

The Family Court upheld the Support Magistrate's order, denying the father's objections. The Support Magistrate was found to have properly declined to draw an adverse inference against the mother for not presenting her current child care worker as a witness, as the testimony would have been cumulative. The court emphasized giving great deference to the Support Magistrate's evaluation of witness credibility. The record supported the finding that the father was responsible for $14,717.50 in child care arrears and $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses for the children. All other contentions by the father were deemed without merit.

Child SupportArrearsMedical ExpensesAdverse InferenceCumulative TestimonyFamily CourtSupport MagistrateJudicial ReviewCredibilityObjections
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 37 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