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
Jun 20, 2005

Worth Construction Co. v. Admiral Insurance

Worth Construction, a general contractor, sought defense and indemnification from Admiral Insurance Company and Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company in an underlying personal injury action. The initial judgment declared both insurers not obligated, but upon renewal, the court modified this, declaring that Farm Family is obligated to defend, indemnify, or reimburse Worth. This decision was based on the interpretation that the injured worker's fall on stairs built by Farm Family's insured, Pacific Steel, constituted liability 'arising out of operations' as defined in the policy, despite Worth's admission of no negligence by Pacific in the underlying action. However, the court affirmed that Admiral was not obligated due to Worth's late notice of the accident. A dissenting opinion argued that Worth's concession of Pacific's non-liability should negate Farm Family's obligation, highlighting inconsistencies in judicial interpretation of additional insured endorsements.

Insurance LawConstruction LawAdditional Insured EndorsementDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate Notice DisclaimerChoice of LawSubcontractor LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate Decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. CA 10-02440
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMP v. BRADY FARMS, INC.

Plaintiff Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Brady Farms, Inc. regarding fatal injuries to an employee, as defendant lacked workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the defendant, obligating the plaintiff. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision, holding that the defendant's liability stemmed from its failure to secure workers' compensation benefits, a statutory obligation, rather than directly from the bodily injury. Consequently, the court found no coverage under the plaintiff's Special Farm Package "10" policy and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Insurance CoverageWorkers' CompensationDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentStatutory LiabilityFarm Insurance PolicyAppellate ReviewExclusion Clause
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08951 [178 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a petition by Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, which sought to vacate an arbitration award denying their claim. Global Liberty had argued that workers' compensation benefits were available to the assignor, Ramon Martinez, and thus their denial of the no-fault insurance claim to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (Martinez's assignee) was proper. The court found that Global Liberty failed to prove Martinez was injured in the course of his employment. The order was modified to remand the matter for a determination of attorneys' fees owed to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC, including those for the appeal.

Insurance DenialNo-Fault BenefitsArbitration AwardAttorneys' FeesWorkers' Compensation CoverageEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewRemandBurden of ProofAssignor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delores B. Cardinal McCloskey Children's & Family Services v. Willie B.

The Court of Appeals reviewed a case concerning the termination of Willie Bethea's parental rights over his children, Willie B. and Delores B., due to permanent neglect. Bethea, incarcerated for murder, challenged the agency's diligent efforts and the Family Court's findings on his failure to plan for his children's future. The opinion addressed the interpretation of Social Services Law § 384-b regarding incarcerated parents' obligations. The court reversed the dismissal of the petition for Delores B., finding Bethea also permanently neglected her, and affirmed the termination of parental rights for Willie B., emphasizing that an incarcerated parent's rights are not paramount to the child's need for a permanent, normal family home.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsChild AdoptionSocial Services LawDiligent EffortsChild WelfareBest Interests of the ChildFoster CareFamily Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daniel AA.

This case is an appeal concerning a Family Court order that terminated parental rights due to permanent neglect. The respondents' children, James and Daniel, were placed in petitioner's custody after a finding of neglect. Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to provide a service plan, including mental health, substance abuse counseling, and parenting classes, the respondents consistently failed to cooperate, resisted change, and denied the existence of problematic behaviors. The court concluded that the petitioner satisfied its statutory obligations under Social Services Law § 384-b, and the mother was capable of planning for the children's future. Given the respondents' unstable lifestyle, characterized by violence and marital separations, the Family Court's decision to terminate parental rights was affirmed, prioritizing the children's needs for consistency, affection, and a stable environment.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsFamily Court AppealChild WelfareSocial Services LawParental ResponsibilityDomestic ViolenceSubstance Abuse CounselingMental Health Counseling
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Robert SS. v. Ashley TT.

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody and visitation. The mother, Ashley TT., appealed the visitation order after the Family Court granted her sole legal custody but allowed the incarcerated father, Robert SS., four visits per year with their son. The father is serving an eight-year prison sentence for rape. The Family Court considered the son's preference to visit his father and found that a social worker's concerns about potential harm were not directly related to the father's behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that the mother failed to rebut the presumption that visitation with an incarcerated parent is in the child's best interests by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child CustodyChild VisitationIncarcerated ParentBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 6Custody ModificationParental RightsSchuyler CountyAppellate DecisionChild Welfare
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. White

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order granting primary physical custody of the parties' two children to the father. The parents, previously married, had a daughter (born 1999) and a son (born 2002). The mother sought treatment for alcohol and prescription drug abuse in Tennessee. During her treatment, the father moved with the children to Albany, New York, for an employment opportunity. After treatment, the parents could not agree on residency, leading the father to petition for custody, which the mother cross-petitioned. Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to the father, establishing a parenting schedule for the mother. The mother appealed this decision, arguing the Family Court did not properly weigh certain testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision to award primary physical custody to the father was in the children's best interests, given the stability he provided as the primary caretaker, his active involvement in their academic and medical care, and their thriving in his environment.

Custody DisputesChild Best InterestsParental FitnessSubstance Abuse TreatmentRelocation of ChildrenAppellate Review of Family CourtPrimary Physical CustodyJoint Legal CustodyParenting ScheduleChild Stability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kasun v. Peluso

The father appealed a Family Court order concerning his child support obligation and maintenance. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court erred by reinstating the father's maintenance obligation, as the mother had previously waived her right to object to its termination. However, the court affirmed the Family Court's decision to grant the father a downward modification of his child support, reducing it to $221 per week, rather than the $145 per week he sought. Additionally, the court upheld the Family Court's finding that the father's failure to pay child support was a willful violation, which properly resulted in an award of attorney's fees to the mother.

Child SupportDownward ModificationMaintenance ObligationWillful ViolationAppellate ReviewFamily LawSupport MagistrateWaiver of ObjectionsImputed IncomeAttorney's Fees
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,067 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