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. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evelyn B.

The petitioner initiated proceedings to terminate the parental rights of the respondent, mother of Evelyn B., alleging mental illness or retardation after Evelyn B. was adjudicated neglected. The Family Court, Clinton County, terminated parental rights, relying on testimony from a court-appointed clinical psychologist who diagnosed the respondent with an untreatable learning disorder and mixed personality disorder, rendering her unable to provide proper care. The respondent appealed, presenting testimony from her treating therapist suggesting potential improvement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination due to the respondent's mental illness and upholding the Family Court's discretion in crediting the court-appointed psychologist over the respondent's therapist, whose expert qualification was also appropriately denied.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewClinical PsychologyForensic EvaluationPersonality DisorderLearning DisorderExpert Witness Credibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Department of Social Services v. Oscar C.

This case examines whether the Family Court properly utilized a dual burden of proof in a child neglect proceeding involving two Indian children. The Family Court applied the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard during the fact-finding phase and the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard during the dispositional phase. The appellant father argued that the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) preempted New York State law, requiring the 'clear and convincing' standard for both phases. The court concluded that the ICWA does not preempt State law when the State law offers a higher standard of protection, and that New York's dual burden of proof can be harmonized with the ICWA's provisions. The court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no conflict with federal law regarding the application of these standards.

Indian Child Welfare ActChild Neglect ProceedingDual Burden of ProofPreemption DoctrineFamily Court JurisdictionFact-Finding StandardDispositional StandardParental RightsIndigenous ChildrenAlaska Native Village
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Board of Trustees

This case involved a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment action to challenge Local Law No. 3 (2006) of the Village of Wesley Hills, which authorized additional special permit uses by amending the zoning law. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, had annulled the local law, deeming it unlawful spot zoning. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, denying the petitioners' petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the local law did not constitute unlawful spot zoning and that the Board of Trustees had complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and relevant provisions of the General Municipal Law.

Zoning LawSpot ZoningLocal LawCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewGeneral Municipal LawAppellate ProcedureLand Use
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1992

Orange County Department of Social Services ex rel. Charity G. v. John G.

This case involves a consolidated child protective proceeding brought under Family Court Act article 10. The petitioner and the Law Guardian appealed an order from the Family Court, Orange County, which dismissed a petition against the respondents, John G. and Ann G., who are the children's grandparents. The appeals centered on allegations of sexual abuse against the grandparents. The appeals court dismissed the Law Guardian's appeal as abandoned and affirmed the Family Court's decision regarding the dismissal of the petition against the grandparents. The court found insufficient proof linking the grandparents to the alleged abuse, citing inconsistencies in the children's out-of-court statements regarding the identity of their abuser, despite strong evidence that the older child had been sexually abused.

Child protective servicesChild abuseSexual abuseFamily Court ActCredibility of witnessesHearsay statementsGrandparentsAppeal affirmedInsufficient evidenceInconsistent testimony
References
2
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

Slocum v. Joseph B.

This case concerns a filiation proceeding initiated by Nathan A.'s court-appointed Law Guardian to establish paternity and secure support from the respondent. The respondent argued that the proceeding was barred by res judicata due to a prior 1977 Family Court order dismissing a similar paternity petition brought by Nathan's mother. The central legal question revolves around whether Nathan is in privity with his mother, thus precluding his current claim. The court adopted a flexible approach to privity, considering the parties' actual relationship, mutual interests, and the adequacy of representation in the prior litigation. It was determined that, under the Family Court Act at the time of the prior proceeding, the mother adequately represented the child's interests. Consequently, the court found that privity existed, and the current petition is barred by res judicata, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order and dismissal of the petition.

Filiation ProceedingPaternityRes JudicataPrivityFamily LawChild SupportLaw GuardianFunctional RepresentationCollateral EstoppelFamily Court Act
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2005

In re Heather P.

This case concerns an appeal by the Law Guardian for a child from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County. The Family Court's order, entered on December 14, 2005, found that it was in the child’s best interest to be adopted by her foster parents and approved a permanency plan of adoption, subsequently freeing the child for adoption. During the permanency hearing, various witnesses testified, including the child's pre-adoptive foster parents and treating psychiatrist. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's determination, concluding that there was no basis in the record to reverse the finding. The Law Guardian's contention regarding procedural errors was also found to be without merit.

Child NeglectFamily CourtAdoptionFoster ParentsBest Interest of the ChildPermanency HearingAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorsLaw GuardianSuffolk County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 20,031 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