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 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision

In re D.A.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order for child D.A., seeking placement with a maternal aunt, T.S., instead of the foster parent, D.L. Concurrently, D.L. and T.S. filed custody petitions. The court consolidated the matters, hearing extensive testimony regarding D.A.'s bond with D.L., Ms. S.'s inconsistent visitation, and the parents' neglect history. The court denied the County's modification application, finding no good cause and emphasizing D.A.'s strong bond and stability with D.L. It further directed the County to initiate proceedings for the termination of parental rights and dismissed both D.L.'s and T.S.'s custody petitions due to lack of standing.

Child NeglectFoster CareChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActDispositional Order ModificationBest Interests of the ChildPermanency PlanningKinship PlacementOnondaga County
References
6
Case No. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Matter of D.A.

This case concerns D.A., a child born cocaine positive and adjudicated neglected, who has been in foster care with D.L. since birth. The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order, seeking to place D.A. with her maternal aunt, T.S., while D.L. and T.S. also filed separate custody petitions. The court denied the County's application to modify placement, concluding that removing D.A. from D.L., with whom she had formed a strong bond, would cause severe distress and was not in the child's best interests. Consequently, D.A.'s placement with the Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services in foster care with D.L. was continued. Furthermore, the court directed the County to file a petition for the termination of the biological parents' parental rights due to the child's extended time in foster care, and dismissed both custody petitions for lack of standing.

Child NeglectChild CustodyFoster CareParental Rights TerminationFamily Court Act Article 10Modification of Dispositional OrderBest Interests of ChildPermanency PlanningInterstate Compact on the Placement of ChildrenLaw Guardian
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

This case examines whether Labor Law § 198 (1-a), which grants attorney’s fees in wage claims, applies broadly to all wage claims or is restricted to violations of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff Seymour Gottlieb, a former real estate salesman, sought unpaid commissions from Kenneth D. Laub & Company, asserting a common-law contract claim and a violation of Labor Law § 198. The lower courts awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the attorney’s fees and liquidated damages remedies under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) are exclusively for wage claims based on substantive violations of Labor Law article 6. The Court emphasized that the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and purpose, along with common-law principles against awarding attorney’s fees, limit its applicability to claims arising directly from article 6.

Labour LawWage ClaimAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesContract ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCommon LawArticle 6Employment Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zackery D.

Petitioner initiated a neglect proceeding against Tosha E. (mother), Lindon D. (father), and Stephen F. (mother's boyfriend) for failing to provide adequate care and exposing children Zackery D. and Hunter D. to known sex offenders. The Family Court found neglect by the mother and father but dismissed the petition against the boyfriend, ordering the children to remain in petitioner's custody with an order of protection. The mother appealed the Family Court's July 2013 order. The appellate court affirmed the findings of neglect, concluding that the petitioner successfully demonstrated, through caseworker testimony and evidence of unsanitary conditions and exposure to sex offenders, that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care, leading to impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the children.

NeglectChild CustodyFamily LawChild ProtectionParental RightsAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceUnsanitary ConditionsChild Sexual AbuseOrders of Protection
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B.T. v. D.M.

The petitioner, B.T., sought to extend an order of protection against her husband, respondent D.M., and alleged a violation of a previous order. D.M. counter-petitioned for visitation with their child. The court denied B.T.'s violation petition, finding insufficient evidence that D.M. orchestrated his older son's actions. However, B.T.'s request to extend the order of protection was granted for two additional years, citing D.M.'s history of severe domestic violence against B.T. (witnessed by the child) and continued harassment including stalking and threatening phone calls even after the initial order. D.M.'s petition for visitation was denied based on the child's best interests; a forensic evaluator reported the child suffered trauma from witnessing the violence and opposed visitation, noting forcing visits could worsen the child's high anxiety and fearfulness. The court found D.M.'s testimony not credible and supported the forensic evaluator's assessment.

Domestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionChild VisitationChild CustodyForensic PsychologyChild TraumaParental BehaviorBest Interests of the ChildHarassmentStalking
References
3
Case No. 884/15
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2025

People v. K.D.

K.D., convicted of Murder in the Second Degree and originally sentenced to 18 years to life, sought resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The court found that K.D. was a victim of substantial domestic violence by the decedent, Norberto Valentin Cruz, which significantly contributed to her criminal behavior, and that her original sentence was unduly harsh. Despite the severity of the crime and the victim's family's anguish, the court considered K.D.'s remorse, rehabilitation efforts, lack of prior criminal history, and strong family support. Balancing these factors, the court vacated the original sentence and ordered a resentencing of 11 years imprisonment followed by 5 years of post-release supervision.

Domestic Violence Survivors Justice ActDVSJAResentencingMurder Second DegreeDomestic Violence VictimCriminal Procedure Law 440.47Penal Law 60.12Judicial DecisionRehabilitation EffortsMitigation Factors
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 2,277 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