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

State of New York Higher Education Services Corp. v. Zamore

Judge Meyer concurs, noting that the Legislature has the power to revive a claim even if it is barred by limitations, citing several precedents. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, and Simons all concur with the decision to affirm the order, with Judge Meyer also providing a separate concurring memorandum in which Judge Jasen joins.

Limitations PeriodLegislative AuthorityClaim RevivalConcurring OpinionJudicial PrecedentAffirmed Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandhu v. Sandhu

Justice Weinstein dissents in part and concurs in part regarding a divorce judgment. The memorandum argues that the evidence presented by the plaintiff husband for cruel and inhuman treatment was insufficient to warrant a divorce in his favor, especially considering the 15-year marriage, the wife's financial dependency, and acts of provocation by the husband and his mother. Conversely, the justice finds that the defendant wife presented sufficient evidence of the husband's cruel and inhuman treatment, including physical assaults and verbal abuse, entitling her to a divorce on her counterclaim. The memorandum recommends modifying the judgment to grant the wife's counterclaim for divorce and remitting the matter for alimony proceedings. It concurs with the trial court's decision to award custody of the three minor children to the husband, based on a psychiatric social worker's recommendation and the children's expressed preference, while ensuring liberal visitation rights for the wife.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentAlimonyChild CustodyDomestic Relations LawMarital MisconductProvocationAppellate ReviewSpousal SupportLong-Term Marriage
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lang v. City of New York

This concurring memorandum addresses a personal injury action brought by plaintiffs Lang and Pokorny against defendant Lawrence and municipal defendants following a severe automobile accident. The jury initially apportioned culpability and awarded damages, but a dispute arose regarding a no-fault carrier's lien on the plaintiffs' recovery. Special Term had vacated this lien. Judge O'Connor concurs with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages. This reversal is based on the trial court's improper exclusion of evidence concerning plaintiffs' basic economic loss against the municipal defendants, who were not considered "covered" persons under the relevant insurance act. Furthermore, the memorandum delves into the broader legal principle of insurance liens, arguing that such liens should attach to any recovery, not just basic economic loss, drawing parallels between the Insurance Law and the Workers' Compensation Law.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LienBasic Economic LossWorkers' Compensation Law ParallelDamages AssessmentNew TrialReversal of JudgmentConcurring Opinion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz Park Avenue Corp. v. Jagger

Judge Ciparick issues a concurring opinion in an ejectment action, agreeing with the outcome of summary judgment against a tenant but dissenting from the majority's legal interpretation regarding the compatibility of B-1/B-2 visas and primary residency under New York's rent stabilization laws. Ciparick argues that while visa status can be a factor, it should not automatically disqualify a tenant from primary residency. The judge found that summary judgment was appropriately granted due to the tenant's unrebutted sporadic occupancy, lack of evidence of New York residency, and admissions of non-occupancy, establishing a prima facie case of non-primary residence, aligning with the rent stabilization law's goal of returning underutilized apartments to the market.

Rent StabilizationPrimary ResidenceB-2 VisaEjectment ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Rent LawImmigration StatusTenant OccupancyHousing LawConcurring Opinion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Nieves-Andino

This is a concurring opinion by Judge Jones regarding an Appellate Division order affirming a defendant's conviction. Judge Jones agrees that the conviction should be affirmed and that the victim's (Millares) pedigree information was nontestimonial. However, he argues that Millares's statements identifying the defendant and providing his address and past conduct were testimonial under Crawford v Washington and Davis v Washington. This is because the primary purpose of Officer Doyle's interrogation, after the immediate emergency had passed, was to investigate past criminal conduct. Despite this Confrontation Clause violation, Judge Jones concludes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the detailed corroborating testimony of witness O'Carroll and other evidence presented at trial.

Confrontation ClauseTestimonial StatementsNontestimonial StatementsOngoing Emergency DoctrineHarmless ErrorSixth AmendmentCriminal ProsecutionAppellate ReviewWitness InterrogationPolice Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perduyn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The petitioner, represented by his Union, was found guilty of serious misconduct after a hearing before a single arbitrator, despite a collective bargaining agreement provision for three. The Supreme Court dismissed his CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, ruling that the petitioner lacked standing to assert an individual claim against the employer and his sole remedy was a plenary action against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. A concurring opinion by Asch, J., discusses the evolution of contract law, highlighting the shift from individual to collective bargaining and raising questions about judicial checks on power abuse by associations regarding their members. The opinion also notes the admission of extensive evidence concerning a 'Black Hand' terror campaign during the arbitration hearing.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Individual ClaimStandingDuty of Fair RepresentationContract LawUnion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moritt v. Rockefeller

Judge Feinberg's concurring opinion agrees with Judge McLean to dismiss a complaint filed by Judge Moritt. Moritt challenged a New York state law requiring 12,000 signatures for independent nominating petitions, which he had failed to obtain. Feinberg argued that Moritt lacked standing because he did not meet this minimum requirement, a standard Moritt himself deemed reasonable. The opinion distinguished the present case from Moore v. Ogilvie and Socialist Workers Party v. Rockefeller, where plaintiffs either met signature requirements or filed suit timely. Furthermore, Feinberg concurred that federal claims related to section 131 were not substantial, advocating for declining pendent jurisdiction over state constitutional claims.

Election LawCandidate EligibilitySignature RequirementsStanding to SueConstitutional LawFederal JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionDismissal of ComplaintNew York State LawJudicial Concurrence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 255 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