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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06050 [154 AD3d 1]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2017

Matter of Leenasia C. (Lamarriea C.--Maxie B.)

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) appealed a Family Court order that retroactively granted a suspended judgment to Lamarriea C., vacated a neglect finding, and dismissed a child neglect proceeding. The mother had initially consented to a neglect finding due to drug presence and unsanitary home conditions. After successfully completing the conditions of a dispositional order for 12 months, the mother moved to modify it. The Family Court granted her motion, reasoning that it was in the children's best interest, especially to remove barriers to the mother's employment opportunities. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, asserting that the Family Court possesses broad discretion under Family Court Act § 1061 to modify orders for good cause and that the mother's compliance and the children's welfare supported the vacatur of the neglect finding.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActSuspended JudgmentVacatur of Neglect FindingBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsAppellate ReviewChild Protective ProceedingsDispositional OrderGood Cause
References
42
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00798 [224 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Camrem C. (Lydia C.)

Lydia C. appealed a Family Court order that found she neglected her child, Camrem C., by inflicting or allowing physical harm. The Family Court's finding was based on extensive medical evidence showing the child had multiple welts, lacerations, and bruises in various stages of healing, indicating a pattern of corporal punishment. This medical evidence corroborated out-of-court statements made by the child to a paraprofessional, the Child Advocacy Center, and an ACS caseworker. The appellant's testimony, which attributed the injuries to a single incident, was deemed insufficient to account for the variety of injuries observed. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the neglect finding, concluding that the record supported the Family Court's decision and that the appellant, at a minimum, should have been aware of the injuries and acted to protect the child.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewPhysical HarmCorporal PunishmentMedical EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCredibility FindingsParental ResponsibilityChild Protection
References
4
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
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. NA-XXXXX-XX/XX
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jonathan C.

This case involves an Article 10 child abuse and neglect proceeding initiated by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) against respondent mother Kimberly F. and her former paramour, Mr. O., concerning three children. The court addresses two motions: one from ACS to compel testimony from Ms. F.’s mental health providers regarding her insight and parenting capabilities, which Ms. F. and her therapists sought to quash citing therapist-patient privilege and HIPAA. The second motion is from Brian C., Ms. F.’s former paramour, seeking to intervene as Jonathan C.'s father, which was previously disavowed by him. The court denied Ms. F.'s motion to quash the subpoenas, compelling the therapists' testimony while limiting disclosure of therapeutic records. It also denied Mr. C.'s motion to intervene, citing the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding paternity. However, the court granted his alternative request for DNA testing to definitively establish Jonathan's biological father, prioritizing the accurate determination of paternity over judicial estoppel.

Child abuseChild neglectTherapist-patient privilegeHIPAAMental Hygiene LawFamily Court ActSubpoena quashIntervention motionPaternity disputeDNA testing
References
26
Case No. 2014-1527 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2017

AVM Chiropractic, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Plaintiff, AVM Chiropractic, P.C., sought to recover benefits from American Transit Ins. Co. The Civil Court initially granted some branches of the defendant's motion for summary judgment and reduced claims based on a fee schedule defense. The Appellate Term modified the order, denying summary judgment for the defendant on specific causes of action (second, third, and sixth through eighth) and vacating findings on others (ninth and tenth). The court found that the defendant did not adequately demonstrate appropriate reductions in accordance with workers' compensation Ground Rules for several claims.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate ReviewInsurance ClaimsAssigneeFirst-Party BenefitsCivil ProcedureGround RulesNew York Law
References
1
Case No. 2015-1339 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

GBI Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by GBI Acupuncture, P.C. from a Civil Court order granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term found that State Farm's denial of claim forms for the first four causes of action were untimely, thus reversing that portion of the lower court's decision. However, with respect to the fifth through eighth causes of action, the court affirmed State Farm's practice of using the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine payment for licensed acupuncturists. The order was therefore modified by denying summary judgment for the first four causes of action, and otherwise affirmed. The case cites previous rulings on timely verification requests and the application of workers' compensation fee schedules.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentTimely denialVerification requestsFee scheduleAcupuncture servicesChiropractorsWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court order
References
2
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antonetty v. Cuomo

Petitioners, including the administrators of Evelina Antonetty's estate and her family members, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the naming and dedication of the 'Evelina Antonetty Mall and Park' in The Bronx. They contended that the respondents, the New York State Urban Development Corporation (U.D.C.) and Governor Mario Cuomo, acted arbitrarily and capriciously by associating Antonetty's humanitarian legacy with a commercial plaza, thereby damaging her reputation. Respondents cross-moved for dismissal, asserting petitioners lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and that the Governor's actions were immune from judicial review. The court dismissed Governor Cuomo as an improper party, determining he lacked the legal authority to reverse the dedication and acted within his executive powers. The court found no evidence that the U.D.C.'s decision was arbitrary or capricious, and ruled that a defamation claim for a deceased person or the use of a name in dedication was not legally cognizable. Consequently, the petitioners' application for injunctive relief was denied, and their petition was dismissed, as the court found a rational basis for the U.D.C.'s actions.

Naming disputePublic land dedicationArticle 78 proceedingStandingDefamation of deceasedJudicial review of executive actionsUrban Development CorporationBronx community affairsInjunctive reliefCivil Practice Law and Rules
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 24,950 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