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

Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Everest National Insurance Company concerning its duty to defend and indemnify Schimenti Construction Corporation, Best Buy, Inc., and Dame Contracting, Inc., in a personal injury action. The underlying plaintiff, an employee of Dame, sustained injuries on a construction site. Schimenti and Best Buy, a general contractor and property owner, were allegedly not named as additional insureds on Dame's policy with Everest, despite a contractual requirement. All parties involved failed to provide timely notice of the accident to Everest. The Supreme Court initially denied Everest's cross-motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court granted Everest's cross-motion, ruling that the failure to provide timely notice vitiated the insurance contract and that the reasons for delay were unreasonable. Consequently, Everest was determined to have no obligation to defend or indemnify the other parties.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSubcontractor LiabilityAdditional InsuredsPersonal InjuryLate Notice Defense
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Troy M.

The Law Guardian filed a motion on behalf of Thomas M., Jr. and Troy M. to dismiss petitions by St. Dominic's Home seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondents Thomas M. and Helen R. The Law Guardian argued that even if permanent neglect were found, the petitions would be dismissed at the dispositional hearing as it would not be in the children's best interests to terminate parental rights, citing their desire to maintain a relationship with their father, lack of preadoptive homes, and positive visits. St. Dominic's Home opposed, stating no legal authority supported a pre-dispositional dismissal and that best interests are determined at a dispositional hearing. The court denied the motion, holding that statutory framework requires best interests to be addressed at the dispositional hearing, not beforehand, and no provision exists for dismissal 'in the interests of justice' at this stage. The court also distinguished the cited precedent, Matter of Brian G., finding the current case's facts did not warrant a similar summary dismissal.

parental rights terminationpermanent neglectbest interests of the childdispositional hearingfact-finding hearingFamily Court proceduremotion to dismissLaw Guardian rolechildren's wishesadoption likelihood
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court judgment in New York County, dated October 29, 1975, which had dismissed a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of her 15-year-old child from the child's grandmother. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, finding that while extraordinary circumstances existed (mother's voluntary surrender of custody, child's long-term residence with grandmother, mother's unwed status and living situation, and past emotional issues) that warranted applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the original hearing was inadequate. The court noted deficiencies such as the child not testifying, restricted inquiry into the mother's relationship with the child, and limited elaboration by a psychiatric worker. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a new hearing to properly determine the child's best interest, to be conducted before a different judge. Justice Kupferman concurred with the 'best interest' standard but dissented on the need to assign a different judge.

Child CustodyHabeas CorpusParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewFamily LawRemandInadequate HearingJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

321 Henderson Receivables, L.P. v. Martinez

The case concerns a petition by 321 Henderson Receivables to purchase structured settlement payments from Pedro Martinez, Jr. under the Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA). Justice Alice Schlesinger examined whether the proposed transfer met the statutory requirements of being in the "best interest" of the payee and "fair and reasonable." The court found the transaction unreasonable, noting a significant discount rate (55.70% of current value) and a 16.39% interest rate. Additionally, Mr. Martinez, a 21-year-old with no income or assets, lacked a concrete and viable plan for the funds, indicating the transfer was not in his best interest. Consequently, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, emphasizing the SSPA's role in protecting vulnerable payees.

Structured Settlement Protection ActStructured Settlement TransferFactoring CompanyPayee ProtectionBest Interest StandardGeneral Obligations LawDiscount RateFinancial HardshipJudicial ReviewDenial of Petition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services v. Andrew B.

This case involves the Department of Social Services seeking to establish the paternity of Shari C., born in January 1970, against a respondent. The petitioner's assignor (the mother) claims a relationship with the respondent through summer 1969, during which she became pregnant, confirmed by Doctor Davis. The court found the mother's testimony truthful regarding their sexual relations. However, the court considered broader public policy and the "best interests" of the child, who has been raised for 10 years without the respondent's presence or support. Despite the State's interest in recouping public assistance expenditures, the court decided that imposing an unknown, unwilling father on a 10-year-old child goes against her best interests and a stronger public policy to free a child from an undesirable parent. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

PaternityFiliationChild SupportPublic AssistanceBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsFamily Court ActDepartment of Social ServicesRecoupment of AidNon-Marital Child
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re United States Lines, Inc.

The United States Lines, Inc. and its Reorganization Trust (Debtors) moved to deny a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest filed by the Public Administrator of the County of New York, Administrator of the Estate of Alfredo Valverde (Claimant). The Claimant's original wrongful death action against U.S.L. resulted in a state court judgment after the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Cornelius Blackshear, found that the doctrines of full faith and credit, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were inapplicable, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over the claims allowance process in bankruptcy. Applying Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court disallowed all post-petition interest, whether pre- or post-judgment, classifying it as unmatured interest. However, the court allowed the portion of the claim representing pre-petition, pre-judgment interest, clarifying that the date of judgment entry does not determine whether interest is 'unmatured' as of the petition date. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the existence of indemnity insurance from the UK Club altered the allowability of the interest claim against the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawInterest on ClaimsPostpetition InterestPrepetition InterestUnmatured InterestChapter 11 ReorganizationClaims AllowanceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAutomatic Stay
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoesten v. Best

Plaintiff Raymond J. Hoesten, a former stage manager, sued Constance Best, an AFTRA executive assistant, and AFTRA for defamation and tortious interference after his termination by ABC. Hoesten alleged Best's statements about his workplace conduct led to his dismissal. The court addressed whether some claims were time-barred, if federal labor law preempted state claims, and if actual or common-law malice was proven. The appellate court ruled that claims prior to July 1998 were time-barred, federal law partially preempted state defamation claims, and Hoesten failed to demonstrate malice. Ultimately, the court dismissed the complaint against both Best and AFTRA.

DefamationTortious InterferenceFederal Labor Law PreemptionActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeStatute of LimitationsSingle Publication RuleUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkplace Misconduct
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,536 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