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. 2025 NYSlipOp 06808
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Matter of C.G. (E.G.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning a Family Court's finding of neglect against respondent mother, E.G., regarding her child, C.G. The court affirmed the finding of neglect, citing two instances of the mother's violent and belligerent conduct that necessitated social services intervention to ensure the child's safety and well-being. These incidents included an attempted stabbing and an altercation with police in Texas that frightened and injured the child. The court determined the child's emotional well-being was at imminent risk due to the mother's actions. The appeal of the dispositional order was dismissed as moot because its terms had expired, and the child had been discharged back to the mother's care. The court also rejected the mother's contention regarding conforming pleadings to proof, finding ample notice was provided.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineFact-Finding DeterminationDispositional OrderChild SafetyProtective ServicesViolent Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2015

S.B. ex rel. S.B. v. New York City Department of Education

The case involves plaintiffs S.B. (parent) and E.G. challenging an administrative decision regarding E.G.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The plaintiffs sought tuition reimbursement for E.G.'s unilateral placement in a private school after alleging the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court reviewed the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) and State Review Officer's (SRO) conflicting decisions. The court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the IDEA claim, finding procedural and substantive IEP violations and that the proposed public school placement was inappropriate. However, the court denied plaintiffs' claims under the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as no bad faith or gross misjudgment was demonstrated. The defendants' cross-motion was accordingly denied for the IDEA claim and granted for the other claims.

IDEAFAPEIEPTuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationDue Process HearingAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActADA
References
42
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06211 [142 AD3d 1167]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2016

Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., A.F.S.C.M.E. Local 1000, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. County of Nassau

This case concerns an appeal by the County of Nassau against a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from a grievance over the termination of Robert Giscombe's employment, which the arbitrator sustained, leading to Giscombe's reinstatement with back pay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the narrow scope for vacating arbitration awards, which requires a violation of strong public policy, irrationality, or exceeding the arbitrator's authority. The court found that the public policy arguments presented by the County of Nassau did not meet these stringent criteria, nor did their claims of fraud or misconduct hold merit. This ruling upholds the enforceability of the arbitration award and limits judicial intervention in such matters.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment TerminationPublic Policy ExceptionCPLR Article 75Judicial Review of ArbitrationAppellate DivisionNassau CountyGrievanceReinstatement
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.G. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs P.G. and D.G., on behalf of their minor child J.G., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). They sought reimbursement for J.G.'s enrollment at Eagle Hill School for the 2010-2011 academic year, alleging the DOE failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The court reviewed an administrative decision by a State Review Officer (SRO) from April 6, 2012, which found DOE's individualized education program (IEP) for J.G. adequate and reversed a prior Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision. The court denied the parents' motion in part and granted the DOE's motion in part, affirming the SRO's findings on the IEP's procedural and substantive soundness. However, the court remanded the issue of the appropriateness of a 12:1:1 classroom placement to the SRO for further consideration.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementAdministrative ReviewState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerProcedural AdequacySubstantive Adequacy
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.O. ex rel. O. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs F.O. and E.O., on behalf of their minor child Brendan O., sued the New York City Department of Education under the IDEA and New York State Education Law. They sought to reverse a State Review Officer (SRO) decision that had overturned an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) decision, which ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for Brendan's private school placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. Brendan, diagnosed with Myasthenia Gravis and Autism, required special education services, and the dispute centered on the adequacy of the DOE's proposed IEP (a 12:1:4 classroom) versus the Rebecca School's program. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment regarding tuition reimbursement, finding the SRO's decision inadequately reasoned and deferring to the IHO's conclusion that the DOE's IEP was inappropriate and the Rebecca School was an appropriate unilateral placement. The court ordered the DOE to reimburse $92,100 for Brendan's tuition but denied the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief concerning a 1:1 health paraprofessional on procedural grounds.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Educational ProgramTuition ReimbursementAutism Spectrum DisorderMyasthenia GravisImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerUnilateral Private Placement
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Erin G.

Patrick G. appealed two Family Court orders from Queens County concerning child sexual abuse against his daughter, Erin G. The initial orders found him guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and directed him to stay away from Erin until her eighteenth birthday. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning the first order as superseded. The court affirmed the dispositional order, allowing for future applications for supervised visitation. The decision affirmed the Family Court's finding of abuse, concluding that Erin G.'s sworn in-camera testimony, demonstration with anatomically correct dolls, and expert validation sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court statements. The appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and undue harshness of the protective order were rejected.

Child protective servicesSexual abuseChild testimonyCorroborationIneffective assistance of counselOrder of protectionFamily Court ActAppellate reviewExpert witnessAnatomically correct dolls
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicole G.

The Rockland County Department of Social Services appealed two Family Court orders concerning child protective proceedings against Nicole G. and Daniella G., which had denied petitions and dismissed the proceedings. The appeal affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Nicole G.'s out-of-court statements regarding her father's alleged abuse were insufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Although witnesses cross-corroborated each other's testimony and Nicole G. provided a narrative, she refused to testify. An expert witness also failed to provide the necessary corroborating evidence with a reasonable degree of certainty. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingsFamily Court Act Article 10Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of StatementsOut-of-Court StatementsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding HearingAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yamillette G.

This case concerns the death of 19-month-old Hailey G. and the subsequent motion for summary judgment filed by the Administration for Children’s Services against the respondent mother, Marlene M., and the respondent father, Edwin G. The motion sought findings of abuse and severe abuse following their criminal convictions for manslaughter related to Hailey's death. The court granted the motion in part, affirming findings of abuse and derivative abuse against both respondents under the Family Court Act. It also found Marlene M. severely abused Hailey and both respondents derivatively severely abused Yamillette under Social Services Law. The decision clarified the application of severe abuse findings, particularly for a non-parent of the deceased child.

Child FatalityManslaughter ConvictionSevere Child AbuseDerivative AbuseSummary JudgmentParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesDepraved Indifference
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,033 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