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
Feb 19, 1991

Barry v. Chefales

The paternal grandmother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated February 19, 1991. This order had vacated a previous visitation order and denied her petition for visitation with her granddaughter. The Family Court's decision was supported by findings from a social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both recommending against visitation, along with testimony from the respondent and her second husband. Sufficient evidence indicated that continued visitation would detrimentally impact the child’s emotional and mental well-being. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court’s decision, finding adequate support in the record for the exercise of discretion.

Child visitationGrandparent visitation rightsFamily Court ActDomestic Relations LawBest interest of the childAppellate reviewDiscretionary rulingChild welfareSocial worker reportPsychological evaluation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braswell v. Braswell

The case concerns an appeal by a father from a Family Court order that modified his visitation schedule with his son. The mother had initiated the modification proceeding, citing the child's entry into kindergarten and the disruptive nature of the existing schedule, as well as the child's diagnosis of acute stress disorder linked to visits with his father. The Family Court denied the father's adjournment request and, in his absence, reduced his visitation to three visits annually. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the adjournment or the modification of the visitation, as a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests were demonstrated.

Child visitationVisitation modificationFamily Court ActAppellate reviewAdjournment denialChild custodyBest interests of childAcute stress disorderParenting timeChild welfare
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Ciccone v. Ciccone

In a visitation proceeding, the father appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which granted the mother’s petition for supervised visitation with their daughter. The Family Court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that despite the mother's history of mental health problems and a past admission of physically abusing an adult son, her condition had significantly improved through voluntary mental health treatment and she showed remorse. The decision to award monthly supervised visits was supported by a court-appointed forensic psychologist, a social worker who supervised visits, and the attorney for the child. The Family Court also considered a finding of a family offense against the mother but determined it did not establish that supervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare, especially since experts reported the mother acted appropriately with the child during visits.

Visitation rightsFamily lawChild custodyParental rightsSupervised visitationMental healthParental fitnessBest interest of the childAppellate reviewEvidentiary basis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1998

Millett v. Millett

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement for two sons. Initially, the parents had joint custody, but the petitioner sought to limit the respondent's visitation due to alleged mental abuse of the children. The Family Court awarded sole custody to the petitioner and mandated that the respondent's visitation be arranged by the children's therapist. On appeal, the court affirmed the termination of joint custody and the requirement for supervised visitation. However, it found that delegating the authority to determine the specifics of supervised visitation to a therapist was an improper delegation of judicial power. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Family Court of Warren County for further proceedings to establish the nature and frequency of the supervised contacts between the respondent and the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsChild mental healthParental fitnessFamily CourtModification of orderAppellate reviewRemandSupervised visitationDelegation of judicial authority
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2014

Shoshanah B. v. Lela G.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child therapy and visitation. The original order, entered on November 5, 2014, permitted the respondent (custodial parent) to enroll the parties' child in therapy and temporarily suspended the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The Appellate Division modified the order, affirming the respondent's right to enroll the child in therapy but vacating the suspension of the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The court found that while the respondent acted appropriately in seeking therapy for the child due to emotional distress, the Family Court erred in modifying the visitation schedule without a proper hearing, as there was no showing of an immediate emergency. The ruling underscores the requirement for a hearing when modifying custody or visitation orders, even on a temporary basis.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsChild TherapyParental RightsCustody Agreement ModificationJudicial Hearing OfficerAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEmergency Order
References
8
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

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
Mar 28, 2011

Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K.

The Family Court, New York County, issued an order modifying a temporary visitation order to grant the petitioner unsupervised visitation with the parties' child. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs. The court proceeded without a plenary evidentiary hearing, citing numerous prior appearances, a December 2010 adjudication of family offenses by the petitioner against the respondent, and an existing five-year order of protection. The court considered testimony and reports from a forensic social worker who had observed approximately 80 supervised visits and proposed a plan for gradual unsupervised visitation. The determination that unsupervised visitation served the child's best interests was supported by the social worker's findings of positive interactions and bonding between the petitioner and child. Despite the petitioner's history of alcohol and substance abuse, court-ordered drug tests were negative. The court's plan mitigated risks by mandating exchanges at a family services agency, which had successfully prevented violent incidents for nearly a year.

Visitation RightsChild's Best InterestsFamily Court OrderDomestic Violence HistorySubstance Abuse TestingForensic Social Worker TestimonyUnsupervised VisitationOrder of ProtectionParental BondingEvidentiary Hearing
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,348 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