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

Claim of Moysello v. David

The claimant, a taxicab driver for David’s Taxi and David Enterprises, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2007. An investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Charles David and David Enterprises were the uninsured "true owners" and employers. A workers’ compensation law judge found them to be employers and uninsured, a decision affirmed by the Board, which found they met the presumptive definition of employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (former [3]) and had proper jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that proper notice of the hearing was received despite competing address claims.

Motor Vehicle AccidentTaxicab DriverEmployer DefinitionUninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawNotice of HearingBoard ReviewAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceCorporate Ownership
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kim HH.

Kim HH., born in 1983, was living with her mother and stepfather in September 1995 when a complaint was filed with the State Central Registry for Child Abuse and Maltreatment due to statements she made about her home life and treatment. A neglect proceeding was commenced, and Family Court found that respondents (mother and stepfather) subjected Kim to excessive corporal punishment and verbal abuse, constituting neglect. Kim was placed in petitioner's custody. Respondents appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of parental misconduct and harm to the child, including physical injury, fear, and enhanced self-esteem after removal from the household. The court deferred to Family Court's credibility findings regarding Kim's testimony of abuse.

NeglectChild AbuseCorporal PunishmentParental MisconductChild WelfareFamily Court ActCredibilityAppellate ReviewChild CustodyPhysical Abuse
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kim K.

The court addressed the Law Guardian's motion to prevent the 13-year-old child, Kim K., from testifying in a fact-finding hearing, citing her fragile emotional state. The respondent grandmother and the Department of Social Services presented conflicting positions regarding the necessity of Kim's testimony for corroborating out-of-court statements. Acknowledging its dual mandate to protect the child and determine neglect, the court denied the outright prevention of testimony. Instead, it ordered an in camera interview with Kim, detailing a procedure for counsel to submit questions and for the court to conduct the session, deciding on the sworn status of her testimony. The court further ruled that such in camera testimony, conducted under its prescribed procedure, could independently serve as sufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect.

Child protective proceedingChild witnessIn camera testimonyEmotional fragilityFact-finding hearingCorroboration of statementsFamily Court ActLaw GuardianDue processHearsay evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David J.

This dissenting opinion argues against the Family Court's decision to return Candice, Christine, and David to their parents, Roslyn K. and Steven K., after the petitioner charged the parents with neglect. The parents previously fled the state with the children, violating a court order. The dissent cites medical neglect of the daughters, alleged physical abuse and extreme isolation of David by his stepfather, and the mother's refusal to send David to school. The dissenting judge concludes that the parents' non-compliance and bizarre behavior create an imminent risk to the children's well-being, advocating for continued foster care.

Child neglectParental non-complianceChild welfareFamily Court proceedingsChild abuse allegationsMedical care refusalEducational neglectDissenting opinionBest interests of childTemporary removal order
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02784 [194 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

David v. David

The infant plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs sought approval for a settlement, but Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the administrator of the infant plaintiff's mother's self-funded employee benefit plan, asserted a subrogation lien for medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied the lien, citing New York's anti-subrogation statute, General Obligations Law § 5-335. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the self-funded plan was governed by ERISA, which preempts the state anti-subrogation statute. Consequently, the subrogation lien was deemed enforceable against the settlement proceeds.

ERISA PreemptionSubrogation LienSelf-Funded Employee BenefitsPersonal Injury SettlementAnti-Subrogation StatuteAppellate DivisionInfant CompromiseAutomobile AccidentReimbursement ClaimsNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2001

In re David M-H.

The case concerns an appeal by a mother from an Orange County Family Court order dated October 2, 2001. The order committed the guardianship and custody of her child, David M-H, to the Orange County Department of Social Services for adoption by foster parents, following an adjudication of permanent neglect. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, reiterating that parental rights can be terminated based on clear and convincing proof of permanent neglect. The court found that the petitioner, the Orange County Department of Social Services, demonstrated the mother's failure to plan for the child's return and disregard of agency orders despite diligent efforts, making termination in the child's best interests. Additionally, the court ruled that a caseworker's hearsay testimony was properly admitted at the dispositional hearing, being material and relevant to whether the mother violated a prior court order.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectFamily Court ActSocial Services LawCustody and GuardianshipAdoptionAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceDiligent EffortsHearsay Admissibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1979

In re David R.

The New York City Department of Social Services petitioned for approval to transfer the custody of David R. under a 'Voluntary Placement Agreement' signed by the maternal grandmother. The child was under two months old and hospitalized at the time. The court evaluated the validity of the agreement, questioning if the maternal grandmother had the right or understanding to place the child, particularly due to a language barrier as she only spoke Spanish and no interpreter was provided during the signing. The court found no binding contract existed, citing the grandmother's lack of authority to place the child, the language problem, and deliberate misrepresentation by the department. Furthermore, the court found that the placement was not in the child's best interests, as the department failed to contact the parents before accepting placement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the child was to be returned to the parents.

Child CustodyVoluntary Placement AgreementSocial Services LawContract ValidityLanguage BarrierDue ProcessParental RightsMaternal GrandmotherFamily Court JurisdictionBest Interests of the Child
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campuzano v. Chea Hung Kim

In October 1987, New York City police officer Julio Campuzano, temporarily assigned to the FBI and sworn as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal, was involved in an automobile accident in Bayonne, New Jersey, while on duty. Instead of seeking federal compensation, he received medical expense remuneration from New York City’s Worker’s Compensation Insurance Fund. Campuzano subsequently sued Mr. Kim in New York State court, who in turn filed a third-party suit for indemnification and contribution against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, after the case was removed to federal court. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing New Jersey law, which bars such claims against employers, should apply. However, the court applied New Jersey’s conflict of laws rules, which led to the application of New York law, thus denying the motion to dismiss.

Federal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawGovernmental Interest TestThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAutomobile AccidentFederal Employee LiabilityNew York Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 631 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