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
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of A.P.P., a Minor Child

This case involves an appeal brought by the biological mother of A.P.P. following a default judgment that removed her as the sole managing conservator and appointed the biological father as a joint managing conservator. The appellant contended that the trial court erred by ordering the default judgment and denying her motion for new trial. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial based on the "Craddock" elements, which require establishing that the failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, presenting a meritorious defense, and ensuring no delay or injury to the plaintiff. The court found that the appellant satisfied all three prongs, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Default Judgment ReversalMotion for New TrialCraddock TestParent-Child ConservatorshipChild Custody ModificationBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceMeritorious Defense
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pavone v. Bronson

The case involves a dispute over child custody between a mother and a father, who initially shared joint custody of their son. In late 2008, both parents petitioned for sole custody. During the hearing, allegations of child abuse by the mother, made by the paternal grandfather, were denied by the mother and found unfounded by Child Protective Services. The mother also presented evidence that the father had encouraged the child to lie to his dentist about an injury and feared the father's 'intimidation techniques.' The Family Court, Dutchess County, in an order dated July 15, 2009, granted the mother primary legal and physical custody, denying the father's petition, citing concerns that the father and paternal grandfather might undermine the mother-child relationship. The father appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the determination that joint custody was no longer appropriate and that primary custody with the mother served the child's best interests, given her greater willingness to ensure meaningful contact with the other parent.

Custody modificationParental rightsBest interests of the childFamily Court ActAppellate reviewCredibility assessmentJoint custodySole custodyParental alienationChild protection
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kasun v. Peluso

The father appealed a Family Court order concerning his child support obligation and maintenance. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court erred by reinstating the father's maintenance obligation, as the mother had previously waived her right to object to its termination. However, the court affirmed the Family Court's decision to grant the father a downward modification of his child support, reducing it to $221 per week, rather than the $145 per week he sought. Additionally, the court upheld the Family Court's finding that the father's failure to pay child support was a willful violation, which properly resulted in an award of attorney's fees to the mother.

Child SupportDownward ModificationMaintenance ObligationWillful ViolationAppellate ReviewFamily LawSupport MagistrateWaiver of ObjectionsImputed IncomeAttorney's Fees
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rutland v. O'Brien

The father petitioned to modify a prior custody order, seeking sole legal custody of his children from the mother due to ongoing parental conflict and their inability to communicate effectively. The Family Court found joint custody unworkable, observing instances of both parents exhibiting poor behavior, including the mother denigrating the father and the father restricting communication between the children and the mother. Consequently, the Family Court granted the father sole legal custody while maintaining equal parenting time. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the Family Court's findings, despite a harmless error in admitting privileged testimony from the daughter's counselor.

Custody DisputeParental ConflictSole Legal CustodyJoint CustodyParenting ScheduleBest Interests of the ChildFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild TestimonyPrivileged Communication
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wayne County Department of Social Services v. Schultz

William Schultz, Jr., a minor, left his father's home due to unbearable living conditions with his stepfamily. Despite initially supporting himself, he eventually began receiving public assistance. The Department of Social Services then sought reimbursement from his father, who claimed William was emancipated or that he lacked the financial ability to contribute. The court ruled that while William was personally emancipated from his father, this did not relieve the father of his legal obligation to support his son when public funds were involved. Consequently, the court ordered the father to pay $25 per week towards William's support.

EmancipationChild SupportParental ObligationPublic AssistanceMinorFamily LawReimbursementFinancial Responsibility
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Osborne

The case involves an appeal by the mother from a Family Court order granting the father's application to modify a prior custody order. Initially, the mother had sole custody, but after allegations of child abuse and non-compliance with an order of protection prohibiting contact with two individuals with concerning histories, the Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents, with the father having physical custody. Subsequently, both parents filed petitions, and the Family Court found the mother in violation of the order of protection and granted the father sole custody with supervised visitation for the mother. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the modification was in the child's best interest, citing the mother's persistent non-compliance and the child's improved well-being under the father's primary care.

Custody DisputeParental RightsChild WelfareFamily Court AppealOrder of Protection ViolationSupervised VisitationBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsModification of CustodyDomestic Violence History
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John A. v. Bridget M.

This case concerns a child custody dispute involving twin girls born in September 1999. The mother, residing in New York City, had custody until June 2004 when it was granted to the father, conditioned on his relocation. The Family Court found that the mother coached the children to make false accusations of sexual abuse against the father, a finding supported by the Law Guardian and neutral experts. Despite these findings, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain with their mother. The court reasoned that awarding custody to the father would mean the children would primarily be raised by their stepmother or paid caregivers due to the father's frequent business travel. The court also noted the mother's desistance from such misconduct since July 2003 and the potential involvement of another adult in planting the false accusations.

Child custodyParental alienationFalse accusationsSexual abuse allegationsBest interests of the childForensic evaluationJudicial discretionFamily lawAppellate reviewRelocation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This proceeding addresses whether a corporate employer can be held directly liable for sexual harassment perpetrated by its highest managerial employee, even without proof of vicarious liability. The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) filed a petition seeking enforcement of a determination that the Father Belle Community Center was liable for sexual harassment by its Executive Director, Vito Caruso, against three complainants: Deborah King, Elizabeth Hurd, and Deborah Horvatits. The court affirmed the finding that the Center was directly liable for Caruso's quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, and for its Board of Directors' condonation and retaliatory discharge of complainants. The court also upheld the $60,000 awards to each complainant for mental anguish and humiliation.

Sexual HarassmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer LiabilityDirect LiabilityRetaliatory DischargeHuman Rights LawDiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCorporate Governance
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Ex Rel. Russell v. West

A mother and father divorced, with the father ordered to pay child support. Ten years later, the father sought genetic testing, which excluded him as the biological father, leading the trial court to terminate his child support prospectively. The State of Tennessee, acting on behalf of the mother, appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the father's petition untimely and not equitable. The court also held that the father's claims were barred by the doctrines of waiver and res judicata due to his prior knowledge and actions acknowledging paternity.

Paternity testingChild support modificationRule 60.02(5) motionEquitable reliefWaiver doctrineRes judicataDivorce judgmentBiological fatherAppellate reviewParentage
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 666 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