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

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oddy v. Oddy

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County that modified a prior joint custody order, granting the petitioner (mother) sole physical custody of the child and specifying visitation for the respondent (father). The respondent appealed, arguing that the Family Court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a showing of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division found sufficient changed circumstances, citing a significant breakdown in communication between the father and the child, which negatively impacted his ability to meet her emotional needs, and the child's consistent strong desire to reside with her mother. The court considered the opinions of the child's social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both of whom supported the change in physical custody to enhance the child's emotional development. Consequently, the Family Court's order affirming the modification of the custody arrangement was affirmed.

Custody ModificationChild's Best InterestFamily Law AppealParental RightsPhysical CustodyJoint CustodyChanged CircumstancesChild PreferenceCommunication BreakdownMental Health Evaluation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhart v. Coles

This case involves appeals concerning a child custody modification and a denied motion for renewal. The Family Court granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order, transferring sole custody of their son, Joshua, from the respondent to the petitioner. The court found that the respondent engaged in deceit and fabrication to undermine the petitioner's relationship with the child, including falsely alleging abuse. Additionally, the respondent's history of alcohol abuse and the child's negative behavioral changes when contact with the petitioner was curtailed were cited as factors. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing deference to its factual findings and credibility assessments, and upheld the denial of the respondent's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

custody disputevisitation rightsparental alienationchild's best interestcredibility assessmentalcohol abuseineffective assistance of counselFamily Court proceedingsappellate reviewcustody modification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2006

Leo v. Leo

The Family Court of Albany Court granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order, awarding him primary physical custody of his daughter. This decision followed two instances where the mother, who suffers from bipolar disorder, experienced severe episodes requiring hospitalization, deeply traumatizing the child. The father had initially obtained temporary custody and later sought permanent modification. The mother appealed, citing procedural unfairness and insufficient evidence to support the custody change. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that there was a substantial change in circumstances and that placing primary physical custody with the father served the child's best interests.

Custody ModificationBipolar DisorderChild TraumaParental FitnessBest Interest of ChildFamily Court AppealMental HealthAppellate ReviewChange in CircumstancesPhysical Custody
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Katrina CC.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated respondent to have neglected Makenzie DD. and derivatively neglected Katrina CC., and from subsequent orders of protection. The Family Court's decision was based on Makenzie's out-of-court statements alleging abuse by respondent. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's findings, concluding that Makenzie's out-of-court statements lacked sufficient corroboration as required by Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi). The court emphasized that a child's repeated accusations or physical demonstrations, without expert testimony or other validating evidence, are insufficient to meet the corroboration standard. Consequently, the findings of neglect for both children were reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Neglect AdjudicationChild ProtectionFamily Court ActHearsay EvidenceCorroboration StandardAppellate ReviewDerivative NeglectOut-of-Court StatementsChild Abuse AllegationsSufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supplement B Pilot Beneficiaries v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses consolidated appeals arising from the bankruptcy of American Airlines and its parent corporation, AMR. The appellants, a group of current pilots nearing retirement known as the “B Pilots,” challenged three orders of the bankruptcy court. These orders authorized American to reject its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the American Pilots Association, approved a new CBA settling B Pilots’ grievances, and allowed American to amend its pension plan by eliminating lump-sum payouts. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders, finding that the B Pilots were not 'interested parties' under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 to object to the CBA rejection, that the rejection abrogated previous guarantees, and that the grievances related to the old CBA did not survive its rejection.

BankruptcyAirline IndustryCollective Bargaining AgreementPension PlanLabor LawPilotsRetirement BenefitsGrievancesChapter 11Union Disputes
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 34,368 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