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. 2025 NYSlipOp 01801 [236 AD3d 1020]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2025

Matter of Borgia v. SCO Family of Servs.

The case involves a dispute between the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn Workers' Compensation Trust (Trust) and SCO Family of Services (SCO) over an unpaid assessment. SCO, a former member of the Trust, was assessed $3.45 million for the Trust's deficit. After making partial payments, SCO sought to verify the assessment, leading the Trustees to initiate a proceeding to enforce an alternative dispute resolution provision. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding based on the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a question of fact as to whether SCO's 2014 partial payment renewed the statute of limitations and whether an installment payment plan was agreed upon. The court also rejected SCO's public policy argument against the dispute resolution provision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Alternative Dispute ResolutionContract EnforcementStatute of LimitationsPartial PaymentWorkers' Compensation TrustGroup Self-InsuranceAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactInstallment PaymentsPublic Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norma B. v. Sven H.

The Family Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Tandra L. Dawson, issued orders on March 31, 2008, September 8, 2008, and October 16, 2007. These orders, in part, found insufficient evidence for aggravating circumstances under Family Court Act § 827 (a) (vii) and denied a petitioner's motion to allow a social worker or the child to testify about out-of-court statements. Upon appeal, the Family Court's credibility findings were affirmed. The appellate court found that acts exposing family members to physical injury were not sufficiently contemporaneous to establish "immediate and ongoing danger." While acknowledging the Family Court's error in denying the child in camera testimony at the dispositional hearing, a remand was deemed unnecessary as such testimony would not have altered the finding regarding aggravating circumstances due to its lack of contemporaneity. The appeal was unanimously affirmed.

Family LawChild TestimonyAggravating CircumstancesCredibility FindingsAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActChild AbuseDomestic ViolenceContemporaneous ActsEvidentiary Ruling
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson 1992 Associates v. Corbett

The appellant, identified as a live-in attendant for a project-based section 8 housing unit tenant, sought to succeed to possession after the tenant's death. The court found no basis for the appellant to succeed as a nontraditional family member under state law. It was noted that project-based subsidies remain with the unit, and vacancies are filled from a waiting list. Furthermore, no approval was obtained for the appellant to reside as an additional family member, and HUD policies do not recognize care attendants as family members for continued occupancy. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to a continuation of the section 8 subsidy or successor occupancy.

section 8 housinglive-in attendanttenancy successionhousing subsidyHUD policyfamily member statuscontinued occupancyappellate courthousing lawfederal regulations
References
1
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

WTC Families for a Proper Burial, Inc. v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, led by WTC Families For a Proper Burial, Inc., brought a lawsuit against the City of New York to compel the reclamation of finely-sifted World Trade Center debris from the Fresh Kills landfill and to create a cemetery for the unidentified remains of 9/11 victims. They alleged violations of Constitutional rights to bury their deceased family members and breaches of New York State conservation and burial laws, arguing the debris-laden ground had become sacred. The City moved to dismiss, contending there were no identifiable remains to bury, and denied any constitutional or statutory violations. The District Court, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, granted the City's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a legally sufficient claim under both federal and state law, primarily because a "quasi-property right" in remains does not extend to an undifferentiated mass of dirt where no identifiable traces of human remains could be linked to specific individuals, and the City's actions during the unprecedented 9/11 recovery were deemed reasonable and not indicative of malicious intent or egregious conduct.

9/11 VictimsWorld Trade CenterFresh Kills LandfillConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentFree Exercise of ReligionRight to BurialUnidentifiable RemainsMotion to Dismiss
References
29
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,823 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