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

In re the Estate of Bricker

In an accounting proceeding, the Department of Social Services (DSS) of the City of New York sought summary judgment for the reimbursement of Medicaid benefits totaling $34,913.44 paid to Montefiore Hospital on behalf of the decedent. The central legal question, one of first impression, was whether the decedent's estate or the hospital should bear the cost of hospital care incurred during a period when the decedent's discharge was delayed. This delay was caused by the hospital's unsuccessful petition for conservatorship, alleging the decedent's incompetence. The court, drawing an analogy to Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 guardianship proceedings, determined that such costs could be proportionally allocated. Weighing equitable considerations, the court partially granted DSS's motion for summary judgment, awarding $26,000, and denied the executrix's cross-motion.

Medicaid BenefitsAccounting ProceedingSummary JudgmentConservatorshipDischarge PlanningUnjust EnrichmentEquitable ConsiderationsSocial Services LawMental Hygiene LawHospital Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Lewis v. East Ramapo Central School District

This case concerns an appeal by the East Ramapo Central School District against an order that granted a petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court considered four factors for granting leave: actual knowledge of the claim by the school district, the petitioner's infancy and its nexus to the delay, a reasonable excuse for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the school district. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the 15-month delay after reaching the age of majority and did not demonstrate that the school district had timely actual knowledge of the claim or that it would not be substantially prejudiced by the three-year-and-eight-month delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e(5)School District LiabilityNegligent SupervisionInfancy ExcuseActual Knowledge RequirementSubstantial PrejudiceAppellate DivisionAssault in SchoolTimeliness of Claim
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Dissolution of Therm, Inc.

Petitioners, two of the three daughters of the deceased Robert R. Sprole, initiated a proceeding against their brother, Robert Sprole II, and nephew, Robert Sprole III. The dispute centers on the distribution of Therm, Inc. stock from a trust established by the decedent, alleging that estate taxes were deliberately delayed to prevent stock distribution and accusing respondents of various manipulations and self-dealing that deprived petitioners of their rightful assets. Respondents moved to dismiss, which the Supreme Court partially granted, limiting the remaining causes of action (breach of fiduciary duty and common-law dissolution) to acts occurring within six years of the proceeding's commencement. Petitioners appealed this limitation, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the ongoing fiduciary relationship and lack of open repudiation. The Appellate Division found the lower court erred, holding that the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty is tolled until an open repudiation or termination of the fiduciary relationship, neither of which occurred here according to the allegations. Thus, petitioners were not barred from presenting proof of acts preceding the six-year period.

Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsTrust AdministrationEstate LitigationCorporate GovernanceBreach of Fiduciary DutySelf-Dealing AllegationsAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEquitable Tolling
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. ADJ2155279 (RIV 0040729)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

JACK RAMSEY vs. CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Sedgwick CMS, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amended a previous award to defer the issue of attorney fees for enforcing an award of Labor Code section 5710 fees. The WCAB affirmed the remainder of the award, including a $100 penalty for unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment, finding the 100-day delay in authorizing treatment with the applicant's chosen physician was unreasonable. The Board also affirmed the award of attorney fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the medical treatment award. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the amount of section 5814.5 fees, with a dissenting opinion arguing for further proceedings on the unreasonable delay issue due to insufficient evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGALegion Insurance CompanySedgwick CMSJack RamseyLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Labor Code section 5710Medical Provider NetworkMPN
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1987

Kross v. Perales

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel the New York City Department of Social Services (NYCDSS) to reinstate medical assistance and food stamp benefits, following a "Decision After Fair Hearing." The NYCDSS subsequently complied. The petitioner then sought attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988, arguing he prevailed and that the NYCDSS delayed compliance. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application for attorney's fees. On appeal, the order and judgment were affirmed, as the court found the petitioner had not established a bona fide civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 or demonstrated that his claim, concerning the administrative application of State statutes, was substantial enough.

CPLR article 78Attorney's Fees42 USC § 198842 USC § 1983Medical AssistanceFood StampsSocial Services LawAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureCivil Rights Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tynetta Q. T.

The case involves former adoptive parents, Emmanuel and Linda, who sought to vacate a January 3, 1991, ex parte order dismissing their adoption proceeding. They returned the child to New York, citing "morally offensive" legal fees for the natural parents' attorney, which they initially refused to pay. The court, without notice, dismissed the adoption, transferred custody to the Department of Social Services (DSS), and referred the matter to Family Court. DSS subsequently placed the child with another family. Petitioners challenged the court's actions, arguing lack of notice and proper procedure. The court denied their motion, affirming its original decision and emphasizing the child's best interests given the irreversible consequences of the petitioners' actions and subsequent delays in seeking judicial relief.

Adoption LawChild CustodyParental RightsJudicial DiscretionProcedural Due ProcessSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawFamily CourtSurrogate's CourtMotion to Vacate
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,222 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