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. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01897 [215 AD3d 751]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Matter of Podell v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment

The petitioner, Kate Podell, sought to challenge an "indicated" report of child maltreatment filed against her with the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. The report alleged that while working at a day care, Podell left a 22-month-old child unsupervised on a playground. After the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) denied her application to amend and seal the report, Podell initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for review. The Appellate Division ultimately confirmed OCFS's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseCentral RegisterFair HearingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceDay Care WorkerUnsupervised ChildAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dara R.

In a child abuse proceeding initiated by the Commissioner of Social Services, the petitioner appealed an order from the Family Court, Richmond County, which dismissed the petition and vacated a temporary order of protection against the respondent. The child, aged seven, testified about alleged abuse by her father, supported by a pediatrician's findings of vaginal scars and testimonies from a psychologist and social workers. The respondent denied the allegations, asserting fabrication by the child's mother and presenting corroborating family testimony. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, reinstated the temporary order of protection, and remitted the case for a new fact-finding hearing. This further hearing is to include examinations of the child by court-appointed physicians and psychiatrists, acknowledging sufficient evidence of abuse while not conclusively identifying the respondent as the perpetrator.

Child abuseFamily Court Act Article 10Temporary order of protectionFact-finding hearingAppellate reviewRemandChild testimonyMedical examinationPsychological evaluationVisitation dispute
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift v. Swift

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner-mother from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted the respondent-father unsupervised visitation rights with their two children. The petitioner alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, Sarah, by the respondent, leading to a temporary order for supervised visitation. Despite two reports to the State Child Abuse Hotline, which were deemed unfounded after investigation, the petitioner sought termination of visitation. The Family Court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof regarding the sexual abuse allegations, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings and its reasons for rejecting corroborating "validation evidence," noting concerns about the petitioner's influence, the social worker's inexperience, and the context of contested custody litigation.

Child VisitationSexual Abuse AllegationsCredibility FindingsHearsay CorroborationValidation EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court OrderParental HostilityChild Custody LitigationExpert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1995

In re Najam M.

The Family Court's dismissal of a child abuse petition, brought by the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian for Najam M. against her respondent father, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court reinstated the petition and entered a finding of sexual abuse, remanding the case for further proceedings. Expert medical testimony from Dr. Jamie Hoffman Rosenfeld, a child abuse specialist, detailed physical abnormalities in the child consistent with chronic manipulation and sexual abuse, which she affirmed could not be self-inflicted. The child's consistent allegations of abuse by her father, made to multiple individuals, further supported the medical findings. The court determined that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of child abuse, which the parents' explanation failed to rebut.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseFamily CourtAppellate ReversalExpert Medical TestimonyHymenal InjuryPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofChild InterviewParental Explanation Rebuttal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert J.

The Commissioner of Oneida County Department of Social Services initiated a child abuse proceeding against a respondent, alleging he sexually abused his grandson while providing child care. The central legal issue was whether the respondent, the child's grandfather providing care outside the parental home, qualified as a 'person legally responsible' under Family Court Act § 1012 (a) and (g). The Family Court denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, finding he fit the definition. The appellate court affirmed this order. Justice Davis dissented, arguing that child care providers, including grandparents, performing services outside the household are not 'legally responsible' within the meaning of Article 10, which he believes is intended for parents or those acting in loco parentis within a family context.

Child AbuseFamily LawFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationChild Care ProviderGrandparentAppellate ReviewLegal ResponsibilityDissenting OpinionOneida County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vincent I.

Petitioner initiated a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding in May 1991, alleging respondent sexually abused his son, Vincent, and abused/neglected his stepchildren, Benjamin and Bradford. Family Court found respondent sexually abused Vincent, relying on Vincent's out-of-court statements corroborated by expert validation testimony from Carol George. George, along with child protective worker Paula Herman, refuted claims of coaching, testifying that Vincent's behaviors were consistent with child sexual abuse syndrome. Following findings, Family Court ordered respondent's supervision, a mental health evaluation, and counseling; respondent subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the findings of abuse and neglect were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

child abusesexual abusechild neglectFamily CourtTompkins Countycorroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementspsychological evaluationjudicial discretion
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01410 [180 AD3d 1259]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Isabella I. (Ronald I.)

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child abuse and custody modification. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding that the child was abused by the father, citing consistent out-of-court statements from the child, corroborated by expert testimony from a social worker and observable changes in the child's behavior. The court also noted a negative inference could be drawn from the father's failure to appear for DNA testing he requested. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the custody order, granting the mother sole legal and physical custody, determining that the abuse finding constituted a significant change in circumstances warranting a custody modification in the child's best interests. The court found no violation of the father's rights despite his absence at the custody hearing, as his counsel was present and presented arguments.

Child AbuseChild NeglectCustody ModificationSexual Abuse AllegationsExpert Witness TestimonyCorroborating EvidenceFamily Court AppealsParental Rights SuspensionBest Interests StandardAppellate Division
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 15,593 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