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

In re Eric CC.

The case involves an appeal by respondents Eric EE. and Elizabeth CC. from Family Court orders adjudicating their children, Eric CC. and Tiffany CC., as abused and/or neglected, and issuing orders of protection. The petitions alleged severe, life-threatening fractures in their six-week-old son, Eric. The Family Court determined the parents caused Eric's injuries, rejecting their "temporary brittle bone disease" defense, and found Tiffany also neglected due to the risk of harm. The appellate court affirmed, citing strong prima facie proof of child abuse and neglect through expert medical testimony, which respondents failed to sufficiently rebut. The court emphasized the credibility findings of the Family Court and the sufficiency of evidence to support the findings of abuse and neglect.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFracturesBlunt-Force TraumaTemporary Brittle Bone DiseaseAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act Article 10Medical Expert TestimonyWitness CredibilityOrders of Protection
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01114 [214 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Tara DD. v. Seth CC.

This case concerns an appeal by Seth CC. (father) from a Family Court order that modified a prior visitation order, limiting the father's parenting time. The Family Court found a change in circumstances, citing the father's failure to properly supervise the child, evidence of a marihuana-growing operation in his home, and serious housekeeping deficiencies. These issues were deemed detrimental to the child's safety and well-being. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support both the finding of a change in circumstances and the determination that supervised or public place visitation was in the child's best interests.

Child custodyVisitation modificationParental supervisionChild's best interestsChange in circumstancesMarihuana cultivationHygienic concernsFamily Court appealAppellate reviewParental responsibility
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2015

Matter of Jennifer BB. v. Megan CC.

Petitioner, the maternal aunt, sought custody of her niece from respondents, the child's parents, due to alleged neglect stemming from unsanitary home conditions and unexplained injuries. Family Court initially granted temporary custody to the aunt, citing extraordinary circumstances based on persistent neglect, despite child protective services finding abuse allegations unfounded. However, the parents promptly remedied the home's conditions and demonstrated full cooperation with authorities. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, determining that the transient unsanitary conditions, especially after immediate correction and the parents' plan to relocate with family support, did not constitute the "utter parental indifference and irresponsibility" required for extraordinary circumstances to disrupt parental custody. Consequently, the petition for custody was dismissed.

Custody DisputeExtraordinary CircumstancesParental RightsPersistent NeglectChild Protective ServicesFamily LawAppellate ReviewHome ConditionsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Katrina CC.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated respondent to have neglected Makenzie DD. and derivatively neglected Katrina CC., and from subsequent orders of protection. The Family Court's decision was based on Makenzie's out-of-court statements alleging abuse by respondent. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's findings, concluding that Makenzie's out-of-court statements lacked sufficient corroboration as required by Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi). The court emphasized that a child's repeated accusations or physical demonstrations, without expert testimony or other validating evidence, are insufficient to meet the corroboration standard. Consequently, the findings of neglect for both children were reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Neglect AdjudicationChild ProtectionFamily Court ActHearsay EvidenceCorroboration StandardAppellate ReviewDerivative NeglectOut-of-Court StatementsChild Abuse AllegationsSufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. ADJ10204256
Regular
May 16, 2017

KEVIN SMITH vs. CC GLASS, CLARK CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH LOS ANGELES for CLARK CONSTRUCTION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of *Kevin Smith v. CC Glass (special employer) and Clark Construction (general employer)*. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding that the defendant failed to diligently pursue discovery, particularly by attempting to depose Dr. Greenspan for the first time at trial. The defendant also did not provide evidence that industrial causation was an issue presented to Dr. Greenspan for his supplemental report. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensationadministrative law judgeLabor Code section 5502(c)discoverydepositionDr. Greenspantrialpriority conference
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Quinn v. Hillside Development Corp.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries after a ladder incident at a building owned by Hillside Development Corp. Hillside subsequently filed a third-party action against County Center Roofing Co., Inc. (CC Roofing), which allegedly provided the ladder, seeking indemnity and alleging vicarious liability for the plaintiff's injuries. CC Roofing moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and arguing that the plaintiff was their employee and did not suffer a grave injury. However, Hillside successfully presented a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status with CC Roofing. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied by the Supreme Court, Westchester County, and this denial was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ComplaintIndemnity ClaimEmployer-Employee RelationshipGrave InjuryAppellate DecisionVicarious Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Heidi CC.

A proceeding was initiated against a respondent and her fiance under Family Court Act article 10, seeking to adjudicate the respondent's daughter as abused and neglected after the daughter reported sexual abuse by the fiance in Canada. The Family Court initially found both abuse, based on respondent's knowledge and allowance of the abuse, and neglect, due to her failure in parental obligations after placing the child in petitioner's custody. On appeal, the abuse finding was reversed because the daughter's out-of-court statement was insufficiently corroborated regarding the respondent's knowledge of the sexual conduct. However, the neglect finding was affirmed, as the record substantially supported the respondent's pattern of inadequate care, non-cooperation with foster care plans, and expressed intent to avoid her parental responsibilities.

AbuseNeglectChild CustodySexual AbuseParental ObligationsFamily CourtClinton CountyCorroborationSufficiency of EvidenceFoster Care
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin CC.

This case addresses whether child testimony given in a Family Court Act article 10 (neglect/abuse) proceeding, outside the presence of the respondent but with counsel present and permitted to cross-examine, is subject to the same confidentiality as a Lincoln hearing in a Family Court Act article 6 (custody) proceeding. The Court concludes it is not. The opinion emphasizes the fundamental due process right to confront accusers and the need for effective appellate representation. Reconsidering a prior decision, the Court vacates the denial of a motion to unseal the daughter's testimony, granting the motion and allowing parties to rebrief their appeals with reference to the unsealed testimony.

Child testimonyConfidentialityFamily Court Act Article 10Neglect proceedingsAbuse proceedingsDue process rightsAppellate reviewCross-examinationUnsealing testimonyLincoln hearing distinction
References
22
Case No. ADJ9605595
Regular
Dec 26, 2017

PHILLIP TAGALONI vs. CC PAINTING AND COATING INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a Lien Claimant's petition for reconsideration of a decision filed on October 10, 2017. The WCAB determined that reconsideration was necessary to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. Pending the decision after reconsideration, all related communications and filings must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or through EAMS. This order also clarifies that trial-level documents unrelated to the reconsideration petition should continue to be filed as usual.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Trial level documents
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aminov v. New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.

Claimant, a black car operator for the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., sustained injuries when his limousine was struck by another vehicle. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that his injuries were compensable, having occurred while performing 'covered services.' The employer and the State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that without a specific assignment, claimant was not performing covered services. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that logging onto the employer's website and driving to an area with high fare activity to increase chances of an assignment was sufficient to constitute performing covered services under Executive Law § 160-cc (4).

Black Car OperatorAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCovered ServicesDispatch InterpretationLog-on ActivityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityInsurance Fund
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13 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