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

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

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

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
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 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

West Genesee Central School District v. West Genesee Teacher Ass'n

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, regarding an arbitrator's award concerning a teachers' collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had partially granted a petition to vacate a portion of the arbitrator's award. The appellate court modified this order, agreeing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by mandating a 40-minute morning preparation period, but reversed the lower court's finding that the arbitrator acted outside his scope concerning mandatory summer workshops. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner's cross-appeal argument that the arbitrator was irrational in determining that attendance at training sessions held outside normal working hours could not be mandated based on the collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementteacherssummer workshopspreparation periodCPLR 7511labor grievancescontract interpretationarbitrator's authorityscope of arbitration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Rose v. La Rose

This case details an appeal by a petitioner challenging two Family Court orders concerning spousal and child support. The initial divorce decree from 1973 mandated $100 weekly support, which remained unenforced for nine years due to the petitioner's career changes and incarceration. In 1982, the Family Court revised the support to $50 weekly for his ex-wife and four children. The petitioner's subsequent motion to vacate this order was denied, leading to the current appeal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal related to the denial of the motion to vacate, deeming it non-appealable. Furthermore, it modified the December 21, 1982, order by reducing the weekly support to $20, citing changes in the children's circumstances and the parties' current financial standings.

Child SupportSpousal SupportFamily LawAppealSupport ModificationNon-appealable OrderFinancial CircumstancesChanged CircumstancesEnforcement of SupportDivorce Decree
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chacon v. Calimia Construction Co.

Calimia Construction Company and Neys Escobar appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which conditionally granted their motion to dismiss a third-party complaint from Bruno Frustaci Contracting, Inc. due to noncompliance with disclosure orders, and denied their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim. Bruno Frustaci Contracting, Inc. cross-appealed the same order. The appellate court dismissed the cross-appeal as abandoned. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order insofar as appealed from, finding issues of fact regarding the extent of Frustaci's control and supervision over Calimia's workers, which precluded summary judgment on the indemnification claim. The court also upheld the conditional grant to dismiss for disclosure noncompliance.

Personal InjuryContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionDisclosure OrdersAppellate ReviewThird-Party PracticeSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityCross-Appeal DismissalProcedural Compliance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1996

In re Jennifer WW.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order extending the placement of respondent's children, Jennifer, Kathryn, and Edward, in petitioner's custody. The initial placement stemmed from respondent's admission of sexually abusing Jennifer, leading to her adjudication as abused and the other children as neglected. The Family Court granted an additional extension of the placement and supervision order, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court considered testimony regarding respondent's progress in sexual abuse treatment, his refusal to acknowledge the sexual nature of his conduct, and the high risk of re-abuse. The appellate court found no error in the Family Court's decision to extend the order, concluding that the appeal was not moot despite the initial order's expiration due to subsequent extensions.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectPlacement ExtensionSexual Abuse TreatmentRisk AssessmentAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActMadison County
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 37,393 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