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

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01513 [170 AD3d 407]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2019

M&M Realty of N.Y., LLC v. Burlington Ins. Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding an insurance dispute. M&M Realty and its insurer, Tower Insurance Company, sought reimbursement from Burlington Insurance Company, L&M Restoration's insurer. Tower had defended M&M in an underlying action after Burlington refused M&M's tender. The central issue is the ambiguity of a contract between M&M and L&M regarding whether M&M was to be named an additional insured under Burlington's policy. The court found that extrinsic evidence did not conclusively establish intent, thus requiring a factfinder. If M&M was intended as an additional insured, Burlington would be obligated to reimburse Tower for defense costs due to the reasonable possibility of L&M's acts causing the injury. The court denied Burlington's motion for summary judgment and vacated the declaration in its favor, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision.

Insurance Coverage DisputeAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionContract InterpretationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAppellate ReviewAmbiguity in ContractReimbursement of Defense CostsProximate Cause of Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.T. ex rel. N.M. v. New York City Department of Education

The plaintiff, M.T., on behalf of her son N.M., challenged the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision denying tuition reimbursement for N.M.'s placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision which found the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide N.M. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court found that the SRO improperly relied on retrospective testimony regarding the possibility of extending a 1:1 transitional paraprofessional beyond the four months provided in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Citing recent Second Circuit precedent (R.E. and Reyes), the court ruled that such retrospective adjustments are impermissible. Due to the court's lack of educational expertise and the unclear centrality of this error to the SRO's decision, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was remanded to the state administrative officers for further consideration in light of the Reyes decision.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationSummary JudgmentRemandState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerRetrospective TestimonyTransitional Paraprofessional
References
27
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.M. v. New York City Department of Education

This case involves parents (J.M. and N.M.) and their child (L.M.) seeking tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for L.M.'s private school tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2011-12 school year. L.M., diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and classified with Autism, was offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by the DOE, including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement at the Hungerford School. The parents rejected the placement and unilaterally re-enrolled L.M. privately. The court, deferring to the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision over the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, found that the IEP's procedural deficiencies regarding the transition plan did not deprive L.M. of a FAPE when the IEP was viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court determined that the parents' objections to the Hungerford School (size, noise, socialization concerns) were impermissibly speculative and did not demonstrate that Hungerford could not implement the IEP. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the DOE had offered L.M. a FAPE.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentProcedural DeficienciesPlacement ChallengesAuditory Sensitivities
References
43
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Madeline M. (Dallas M.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Family Court's finding that the mother, Dallas M., neglected her child, Madeline M. The decision was based on a preponderance of the evidence showing the mother suffers from untreated mental illness, including bipolar disorder, with a history of psychiatric hospitalizations and a failure to comply with mental health treatment recommendations. The court found her continued lack of insight into her condition impaired her ability to care for the child, posing an imminent risk of harm. A negative inference was drawn against the mother for her failure to testify at the hearing.

Child NeglectParental Mental IllnessBipolar DisorderAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionPreponderance of EvidenceNegative InferenceParental FitnessRisk of Harm to ChildChild Welfare
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08418 [155 AD3d 1466]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Matter of Natalee M. (Nathan M.)

The Broome County Department of Social Services initiated a neglect proceeding against Nathan M. (father) and Susan N. (mother) concerning their child, Natalee M. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and denied her pregnancy, failing to secure prenatal care and medical consent. Both parents were found to have failed in providing a safe home environment, as their residence was undergoing extensive renovations. Family Court adjudicated the child neglected by both parents. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the neglect findings against both parents and dismissed the mother's appeal from the dispositional order, noting her consent to its terms.

Child NeglectParental NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Drug AbuseUnsuitable Home EnvironmentParental ResponsibilitiesPreponderance of EvidenceAppellate DivisionAffirmation of NeglectDismissed Appeal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M & M Contracting & Consulting

The plaintiffs, a group of Mason Tenders District Council Funds and associated entities, along with the Union and its managers, sued M & M Contracting & Consulting and its president, Michael T. Moscato, Jr. The suit, brought under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, sought to compel defendants to fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations regarding monetary contributions, reports, dues checkoffs, and NYLPAC contributions. Following the defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered against them. The defendants subsequently moved to vacate this judgment, citing excusable neglect due to their attorney's negligence, a meritorious defense, and a lack of personal jurisdiction over Moscato. The District Court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that their default was willful and dilatory, their defense lacked merit, and personal jurisdiction over Moscato was properly established according to N.Y.C.P.L.R.

Default JudgmentMotion to VacateExcusable NeglectAttorney MalpracticeMeritorious DefensePersonal JurisdictionERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsDues Checkoff
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,157 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