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 Hans S.

Parents Jack and Ursula S. appealed a Family Court order from Rockland County dated July 6, 1979, which declared their son, Hans S., permanently neglected and authorized his adoption. The Rockland County Department of Social Services had intervened in 1975 due to neglect reports, leading to Hans being placed in foster care in 1976. The agency later petitioned for permanent neglect, alleging parental failure to plan for Hans's return and refusal of mental health services. The appellate court reversed the order and dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence that the parents failed to plan for their child's future, citing their engagement in psychiatric counseling and consistent visits with Hans. The court concluded that the agency's proof of "lack of planning" was inadequate.

Family Court ActPermanent NeglectParental RightsChild WelfareFoster CareAdoptionPsychiatric TreatmentDiligent EffortsBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02138 [182 AD3d 658]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Kristen MM. v. Christopher LL.

This case involves an appeal by Christopher LL. (father) against Kristen MM. (mother) regarding two amended orders from the Family Court of Schenectady County. The Family Court had granted the mother permission to relocate with their twin children to Arizona and dismissed the father's petition for joint legal and physical custody. The father contended that the court's determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the relocation was in the children's best interests due to the mother's role as the primary caretaker and the father's sporadic involvement. The court also found that the fashioned visitation schedule preserved the relationship between the father and the children.

Child RelocationCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildParental VisitationFamily Court DecisionAppellate ReviewParental ResponsibilityChild SupportParental AgreementSchenectady County
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. CV-24-0676
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Christopher A. Augone

Claimant Christopher A. Augone had an established claim for work-related neck injuries sustained in 2021. Questions arose regarding prior injuries after a physician referenced a pre-2021 MRI. Despite claimant's denials, records showed a 2017 emergency room visit for neck pain. The employer and carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation for intentional misrepresentation. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that the carrier failed to prove intent, accepting claimant's explanation that he didn't consider the 2017 incident significant and forgot about it. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence regarding the lack of intentional misrepresentation.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationMaterial MisrepresentationIntent to DeceiveSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility FindingNeck Injury ClaimPrior Medical HistoryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
6
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lynda H. M.

This is a guardianship proceeding initiated by St. Christopher's Home under section 384-b of the Social Services Law concerning a child born with methadone withdrawal whose mother died of methadone toxification. The case addresses the paternity of the child, with Louis Antonio M. claiming fatherhood and opposing the adoption, despite Kenneth H. having executed an acknowledgement of paternity. The court ruled that abandonment is a viable ground for terminating parental rights even if the parent is incarcerated. Finding that Mr. M. abandoned the child for over six months, the court granted the petition for guardianship and custody to St. Christopher’s Home, including the power to place the child for adoption.

Child WelfareGuardianshipParental Rights TerminationAbandonmentSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawIncarcerationPaternity DisputeAdoptionMethadone Withdrawal
References
3
Case No. ADJ18001417
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

CHRISTOPHER CANDIA vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Christopher Candia v. City and County of San Francisco. The Board adopted the Arbitrator's Report and Recommendation, which found applicant Christopher Candia's meningioma to be a compensable industrial injury. The decision was based on the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 for firefighters, as the medical opinion of treating neurosurgeon Dr. Bruce McCormack classified the tumor as Grade II, indicating malignant features, and evidence showed Candia's exposure to carcinogens during his employment. The Board upheld the arbitrator's determination, giving greater weight to Dr. McCormack's opinion over the IME Dr. Raye Bellinger's.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management Systemsubstantial evidenceneurosurgeontreating physicianIMEmeningioma
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2001

United States v. Reyes

Defendant Christopher Reyes sought a judgment of acquittal after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport stolen airbags in interstate commerce. The District Court, reserving judgment on the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion, reviewed the government's evidence to determine if Reyes' knowing and willful participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence included testimony from a co-conspirator's employee, recorded phone calls, and an FBI agent's account of post-arrest interrogations. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Reyes' specific intent, citing the ambiguity of his statements and the unreliability of the FBI agent's testimony due to inconsistencies and volunteered opinions. Consequently, the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was granted, and the court also commented on proper grand jury procedures and witness testimony.

Criminal LawConspiracyStolen PropertyJudgment of AcquittalRule 29 MotionSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityFBI TestimonyHearsayGrand Jury Proceedings
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ditullio v. Village of Massena

Plaintiff Christopher Ditullio, a police officer with the Village of Massena, sued Defendant Village of Massena for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York Human Rights Law (HRL). Ditullio claimed disability discrimination and retaliation after sustaining a severe eye injury and being prevented from returning to road patrol duty. The Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the ADA discrimination claim, finding the Plaintiff not 'disabled' under the ADA as his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity. However, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the HRL disability discrimination and retaliation claims, citing genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment concerning alleged unlawful medical inquiries was also denied, as the inquiries were deemed job-related and consistent with business necessity.

ADAHuman Rights LawDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPolice OfficerEye InjuryVisual ImpairmentSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activity
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 168 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