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
May 15, 1990

Steel v. Steel

In this divorce action, the defendant mother sought pendente lite child support for their four children. Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob presided over the case, applying the newly effective Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to determine the support amount. The court meticulously calculated the combined parental income, applied statutory deductions and percentages for income above and below $80,000, and apportioned child care and medical expenses. Recognizing the significant income disparity, the father was ordered to pay an annual sum of $53,212 for child support, along with 100% of the children's reasonable medical and dental expenses.

Child SupportPendente LiteDivorceCSSAIncome CalculationChild Care ExpensesMedical ExpensesStandard of LivingParental Income DisparityDomestic Relations Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huddleston v. Rufrano

The mother appealed a Family Court order denying her objections to a child support magistrate's decision, which directed the father to pay $155 per week. The appellate court modified the order, increasing the father's child support obligation to $259 per week. The court found that the Support Magistrate failed to properly impute additional income to the father, including payments from his business, A & J Drain, Inc., and earnings generated by his father-in-law. The father's testimony regarding his finances was deemed incredible. The appellate court determined the father's annual income to be $78,830.82, justifying the increased child support payment.

Child SupportIncome ImputationSelf-EmploymentWorkers' CompensationCredibilityAppellate ReviewFamily LawModification of SupportFinancial DisclosureSupport Magistrate
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Monroe County Child Support Collection Unit

This case concerns the priority of four liens against a $7,500 settlement received by Mr. Daniels. The liens include his attorney's charging lien, a workers' compensation lien by Legion Insurance, a child support lien by the Child Support Collection Unit for over $20,000, and a judgment lien by former landlord Robert Dykes. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, determined that the attorney's charging lien takes first priority based on logic and public policy, as the attorney created the fund benefiting all lienors. Legion Insurance's workers' compensation lien received second priority, as the Child Support Collection Unit had already had an opportunity to levy on the initial workers' compensation payments. The Child Support Collection Unit was placed third, and Robert Dykes's judgment lien was last. The court rejected arguments that CPLR 5242 (d) gave child support priority over statutory and charging liens in this specific context.

Lien PriorityAttorney's Charging LienWorkers' Compensation LienChild Support LienJudgment LienCPLR 5242 (d)Workers’ Compensation Law § 29Domestic Relations Law § 240Public PolicyEquitable Principles
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1982

Meirowitz v. Meirowitz

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appealed a Supreme Court judgment that awarded custody to the defendant husband, and denied her applications for maintenance and child support, and counsel fees. The appellate court reversed the judgment, granting custody of the infant issue to the wife, conditional on her continued residency in New York State. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to establish liberal visitation rights for the husband, set reasonable child support, and determine the wife's entitlement to maintenance and counsel fees. The court emphasized the child's best interests and the priority of initial custody arrangements, noting the wife had de facto custody since May 1981 and expert testimony supported her as the primary and more stable parent.

CustodyChild SupportMaintenanceCounsel FeesMatrimonial ActionAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildVisitation RightsParental FitnessDe Facto Custody
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Campos v. Campos

This case involves an appeal by a respondent father concerning child support arrears. An initial support order was issued by default, and the arrears amount was subsequently recalculated multiple times by a Hearing Examiner. The Family Court confirmed an order setting arrears at $23,310. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that the Hearing Examiner failed to ascertain whether the respondent's income between 1990 and 1993 fell below or equaled the poverty income guidelines, as mandated by Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g). Given the respondent's documented unemployment, SSI benefits, and public assistance, the court concluded that child support arrears should not have exceeded $500 during that period. The matter was remitted for a new determination of arrears consistent with the poverty income guidelines.

Child Support ArrearsPoverty GuidelinesFamily Court ActSSI BenefitsPublic AssistanceUnemploymentPsychological ConditionRes JudicataAppellate ReviewReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Daigle

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to suspend his child support obligation and denied the defendant's motion for counsel fees. The parties were divorced in 2001 and have two sons. The plaintiff sought to terminate child support, including private school tuition, based on the sons' abandonment, which he attributed largely to the defendant. The Supreme Court suspended child support, concluding that while the defendant had not willfully manipulated the sons, the sons had abandoned the plaintiff and were constructively emancipated. On appeal, the court reversed the suspension of child support, holding that the sons, aged 16 and 14, were not of employable age, a necessary prerequisite for constructive emancipation, and thus could not forfeit their right to support. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

Child SupportConstructive EmancipationParental AbandonmentVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewEmployable AgeSaratoga CountyCounsel FeesJudicial Discretion
References
12
Case No. 12-18-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2019

in the Interest of B. L. W., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Brandon Lynn Walker against a trial court's order concerning conservatorship and child support for B.L.W., a child he shares with Kamena Taquay Handsborough. Brandon challenged the custody arrangements, child support calculations, the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the refusal to grant additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as his motion to suspend judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conservatorship decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in appointing both parents as joint managing conservators and Kamena with the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the order regarding child support due to an inconsistency in the ordered amounts, which were not properly supported by evidence or calculation guidelines. All other issues raised by Brandon were overruled.

Child CustodyChild SupportParental RightsAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawConservatorshipMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawMotion to Suspend Judgment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archer v. Carrion

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. The petitioner sought to expunge a report from the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, but the application was denied. The court confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the petitioner, a daycare worker, failed to adequately supervise a 22-month-old child who subsequently wandered onto a busy road due to unsafe daycare premises. The petitioner's arguments regarding the denial of the opportunity to examine a caseworker were deemed waived, and the exclusion of unemployment benefits evidence was found to be irrelevant to the charges.

Child AbuseChild MaltreatmentExpungementDaycare SupervisionAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWaiver of ClaimsAdmissibility of Evidence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 17,165 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