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
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Interest of S.B.C.

Carlos Castillo appealed the denial of his motion to modify child support, which was originally set at $400 per month in 1990 and later increased to $850 per month in 1994. In 1996, Carlos sought a downward modification, citing his retirement from the military and enrollment in law school, leading to a reduction in his income. The trial court denied his motion, reasoning that Carlos was intentionally unemployed given his educational background, work experience, and available assets such as home equity. The court also considered the increased financial needs of the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the denial of the downward modification was not an abuse of discretion, and declined to impose sanctions for the appeal.

child support modificationvoluntary unemploymentearning potentialfinancial circumstancesbest interest of childabuse of discretionfactual sufficiencyretirement incomeassetsintentional underemployment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Hartmann

Respondent appealed a Family Court order denying his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The original child support order, based on a 1994 stipulation, set varying weekly amounts depending on respondent's employment status. Respondent sought modification after his minor child began receiving $424 per month in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, arguing this constituted a change in circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, ruling that a child's SSDI benefits do not relieve a parent of their support duty. The court also noted that respondent's unemployment and receipt of benefits were contemplated in the original agreement, and insufficient evidence was provided for a financial change in circumstances.

Child SupportModificationSocial Security Disability InsuranceSSDI BenefitsChange in CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 4Appellate ReviewParental ObligationFinancial HardshipDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ms. B. v. Mr. K.

Mr. K. filed a petition seeking a downward modification of child support after losing his job at IBM and taking a lower-paying position. Hearing Examiner Brinnier denied the modification, finding Mr. K. failed to prove his income reduction was involuntary. Mr. K. objected, arguing his departure from IBM under an 'individual transition option' was reasonable given his declining performance and the company's downsizing. The court reviewed the objections and determined that Mr. K.'s decision to leave IBM was reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that the prior support order of $131 per week should continue during the period covered by Mr. K.'s IBM lump-sum buyout. The case is remanded to the Hearing Examiner to ascertain Mr. K.'s income from Fitness Unlimited and to chart the fluctuations in the support order.

Child Support ModificationDownward ModificationVoluntary TerminationInvoluntary TerminationChild Support Standards ActFamily Court ActLump-Sum PaymentIncome CalculationFinancial AffidavitEmployment Change
References
0
Case No. 263 AD2d 686
Regular Panel Decision

Cicardi v. Cicardi

Petitioner Cicardi appealed two Family Court orders from Albany County, entered August 7, 1997, which dismissed his application for modification of a prior child support order and found him in arrears of approximately $19,600. The original 1994 order required petitioner to pay $150 per week. Cicardi sought to vacate arrearages and support obligations, claiming permanent disability due to a workers' compensation claim, but failed to provide competent medical evidence of a change in circumstances. The Family Court denied his requests for recusal of the judge and assignment of counsel, and precluded certain evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's orders, finding no error in the lower court's decisions regarding counsel, recusal, evidence preclusion, or the finding that Cicardi did not meet his burden of proving a substantial change in financial circumstances to warrant a downward modification, especially given his lack of effort to retrain.

Family LawChild SupportSupport ModificationArrearagesDisability ClaimChange in CircumstancesRecusal MotionAssignment of CounselPro Se LitigantEvidence Preclusion
References
14
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

Von Dwingelo v. Dwingelo

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County, which granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order. The parties, married in 1991, had a daughter, Crystal, born in 1992, and initially shared joint custody with the respondent having physical custody. In 1998, the petitioner sought physical custody, and the Family Court ruled in his favor, prompting the respondent's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the modification, citing substantial changes in circumstances over four years that warranted a change to ensure Crystal's best interests. The respondent's unstable lifestyle, including frequent moves, a welfare fraud conviction, and disregard for visitation, contrasted with the petitioner's established stability and efforts to maintain a relationship with his daughter.

custody modificationchild custodybest interest of the childparental fitnessfamily courtvisitation rightsappellate reviewparental stabilityresidential changeswelfare fraud
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 471 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