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

Laura A. K. v. Timothy M.

The case involved appeals by a father concerning two Family Court orders related to child custody and visitation in Orange County. The first order, dated March 23, 1992, denied his petition for joint custody, while the second, dated February 25, 1993, limited his visitation rights to supervised Sunday afternoons. Additionally, a law guardian had cross-appealed the first order regarding the father's expanded visitation rights, but this cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed both Family Court orders, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount in custody proceedings. The court found that the parents' hostility and inability to cooperate, along with the mother being the primary caregiver, justified the sole custody award to the mother and the imposed visitation limitations.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewJoint CustodySole CustodyBest Interest of the ChildParental AntagonismSupervised VisitationDomestic Relations Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1992

George W. S. v. Donna S.

This case involves a child custody dispute between a father and mother regarding their daughter, born in 1984. The Family Court initially granted the parties joint custody, with the child residing with the father on the condition that he live within a five-mile radius of the former marital residence, and denied the mother's application for sole custody. Both parents have a history of psychological issues and demonstrated significant antagonism towards each other. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, finding that joint custody was inappropriate given the parents' inability to cooperate. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for complete psychological evaluations of the parties and the child, and for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

child custodyfamily lawjoint custodypsychological evaluationparental antagonismmental healthappellate reviewremittaldomestic relationsmarital residence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laici v. Baldwin

This case involves a custody dispute between a petitioner mother and respondent father concerning their two children, Jacob and Sarah. The couple separated in 1982, and custody was temporarily placed with the Department of Social Services in 1984. Petitioner sought sole custody in 1986, supported by social workers, a psychologist, and the Law Guardian who cited her efforts to improve her life and ability to meet the children's emotional needs. Conversely, the respondent father largely remained unemployed and refused psychological testing. The court initially awarded custody to the respondent, emphasizing his current wife's stable living arrangement. The dissenting judges argue this decision erroneously prioritized the father's *derived* stability over the mother's demonstrated efforts and capacity for the children's emotional development, advocating for a reversal and award of custody to the petitioner mother based on overwhelming expert testimony.

custody disputeparental rightschild welfarebest interests of the childdissenting opinionfamily lawpsychological evaluationparental stabilitydomestic abuseappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2007

Tonisha J. v. Paul P.

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order concerning child custody in New York County. The initial order, issued by Referee Elizabeth Barnett, denied the petitioner mother's request for permanent custody and granted the respondent father sole legal and physical custody. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, concluding that the Referee's findings lacked a sound and substantial basis, particularly in light of the mother's primary role in raising the child and her subsequent efforts to address past misconduct. The court found that the child was well cared for by the mother and that her past poor judgment did not negate her ability to be the custodial parent, especially after she obtained therapeutic assistance. Consequently, the father's petition was denied, the mother's petition was granted, and the matter was remanded for establishing a visitation schedule that serves the child's best interests.

Child CustodyFamily LawParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildCustodial ParentVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewReferee DecisionModification of Custody OrderForensic Social Worker Evaluation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

Vann v. Vann

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Orange County, which awarded custody of her two daughters to the father. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that custody determinations are discretionary and accorded great weight on appeal due to the hearing court's opportunity to observe witness demeanor and the children's desires. The court reiterated that the paramount concern in custody disputes is the child's best interests, considering factors like home environment, parental guidance, financial status, and parental fitness. The Family Court conducted a thorough hearing, including witness testimony and in-camera interviews with the children, and its decision was found to have properly weighed the relevant factors.

Child CustodyFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewParental GuidanceFinancial StatusWitness DemeanorDiscretionary DecisionHearing CourtAffirmed Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Custody of Rebecca B.

In a child custody proceeding, the court unanimously affirmed orders from the Family Court, New York County. These orders denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, granted the Law Guardian's motion to quash subpoenas, and denied the respondent's motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court found that Lawyers for Children, Inc., as the child's Law Guardian, had standing to seek a change of custody. It also ruled that communications between the child and the Law Guardian, as well as a hired social worker, were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, justifying the quashing of subpoenas. Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the psychiatrist was properly denied due to a lack of proof of bias.

Child CustodyLaw Guardian StandingSubpoena QuashalAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrinePsychiatrist DisqualificationFamily Court OrdersAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionLegal Representation of Child
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raychelle J. v. Kendell K.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Broome County, which modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement between unmarried parents. The mother initiated proceedings after the father physically assaulted one of their sons and the mother during a dispute. The Family Court determined the father committed a family offense, issued an order of protection, granted the mother sole custody, and ordered supervised visitation for the father. The father appealed, challenging only the supervised visitation restriction. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, citing the father's history of temper outbursts, inappropriate use of corporal punishment, and his refusal to participate in therapy, concluding that supervised visitation was in the children's best interests.

Custody modificationSupervised visitationFamily offense findingCorporal punishmentChild safetyParental conductBest interests of childrenAppellate reviewFamily Court discretionDomestic violence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Kemp v. Kemp

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County concerning the modification of a prior custody order for two sons. The parties, who divorced in 1999, initially had a separation agreement granting joint legal custody with the respondent having primary physical custody. However, due to the respondent's subsequent criminal convictions, probation violation, and incarceration in January 2002, the petitioner gained actual physical custody of the children. The Family Court subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody to the petitioner, citing several factors including the respondent's incarceration, lack of credibility, failure to address self-destructive behavior, and the stable home environment provided by the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding it to be based on a sound and substantial record, and rejected the respondent's contentions regarding joint custody and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Custody ModificationFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildParental FitnessChange in CircumstancesIncarcerationMental Health EvaluationCredibility AssessmentJoint CustodySole Custody
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1999

Yetter v. Jones

This case involves cross appeals from a Family Court order concerning child custody following the parties' 1995 divorce. Custody was initially awarded to the petitioner but later, after the petitioner's hospitalization, temporary custody shifted to the respondent. Both parties then petitioned for sole custody, leading the Family Court to award joint custody with the children's primary residence with the respondent. The Appellate Division reversed the joint custody award, determining that the parents' demonstrated bitterness and hostility made cooperative co-parenting impossible and thus joint custody an unworkable solution. Based on the petitioner's recurring mental health challenges, instances of poor judgment in relationships, and an unstable environment, contrasted with the respondent's more stable home life where the children were thriving, the court awarded sole custody to the respondent. The Appellate Division also affirmed the Family Court's discretion in not ordering home studies or additional psychological reports, given the available testimony and information.

custody disputejoint custody reversalsole custody awardparental mental healthchild welfarevisitation rightshostile co-parentsbest interests of childrenappellate reviewFamily Court Act
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,221 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