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

In re Jamie EE.

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of an application to adjudicate Jamie EE. and her brothers as abused and neglected children by respondent. The Family Court dismissed the case for lack of corroboration of the child's out-of-court statements and denied the Law Guardian's request for an in camera interview with the child. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order, holding that an in camera interview could provide the necessary corroboration for the child's statements and should have been allowed. The matter was remitted to Family Court to conduct the interview and receive additional relevant evidence from the Law Guardian.

Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of Child StatementsHearsay EvidenceIn Camera TestimonyFamily Court ActAppellate ReversalRemandLaw Guardian RoleChild Welfare Proceedings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2011

Colortone Camera, Inc. v. New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board

Colortone Camera, Inc. challenged the reclassification of its employees from Workers' Compensation Classification Code 8017 to 8018, which resulted in significantly increased insurance rates. The company's appeal to the Superintendent of Insurance, affirming the New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board's determination, was reviewed in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the Superintendent's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence that Colortone's business was primarily wholesale. Additionally, Colortone sought a declaratory judgment that portions of the Workers Compensation & Employers Liability Insurance Manual were unconstitutional for vagueness. This aspect of the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance and further proceedings, as it was not properly before the appellate court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance RatesBusiness ReclassificationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Thea T.

The Suffolk County Attorney's Office, on behalf of Suffolk County Child Protective Services, filed an application seeking an order to direct the Law Guardian to permit a third interview of 11-year-old Thea T., who alleges sexual abuse by her father. The County also sought the Law Guardian's cooperation with pretrial preparation. The Law Guardian opposed the request for a third interview, citing potential harm to the child, who had already undergone two previous interviews. The court applied a two-prong test, weighing the County's asserted need against the potential harm to the child. Finding the County's justification for a third interview conclusory and lacking an articulable basis, and balancing this against the potential for intimidation and embarrassment to the child, the court denied both applications.

Child Protective ServicesChild InterviewLaw Guardian RoleFamily Court ActDiscovery DisputePretrial PreparationChild WelfareVulnerable WitnessEvidentiary StandardBalancing Test
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kim K.

The court addressed the Law Guardian's motion to prevent the 13-year-old child, Kim K., from testifying in a fact-finding hearing, citing her fragile emotional state. The respondent grandmother and the Department of Social Services presented conflicting positions regarding the necessity of Kim's testimony for corroborating out-of-court statements. Acknowledging its dual mandate to protect the child and determine neglect, the court denied the outright prevention of testimony. Instead, it ordered an in camera interview with Kim, detailing a procedure for counsel to submit questions and for the court to conduct the session, deciding on the sworn status of her testimony. The court further ruled that such in camera testimony, conducted under its prescribed procedure, could independently serve as sufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect.

Child protective proceedingChild witnessIn camera testimonyEmotional fragilityFact-finding hearingCorroboration of statementsFamily Court ActLaw GuardianDue processHearsay evidence
References
15
Case No. MON 0333042 MON 0333043
Regular
May 01, 2008

JOSE LUIS CASTANEDA vs. SAMY'S CAMERA, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Jose Luis Castaneda's claim for temporary disability benefits following two work-related injuries from Samy's Camera, Inc. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award limiting temporary disability to two years from commencement, finding that concurrent injuries result in a concurrent application of the two-year cap under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). This decision aligns with the appellate court's ruling in *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which held that the 104-week/2-year limitation runs concurrently when independent injuries cause simultaneous temporary disability.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnitypetition for reconsiderationtwo-year capFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.aggregate disability paymentsconcurrent periodsspecific injurycumulative injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. 07-05-0110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2005

$1,364.00, One 1997 Ford Thunderbird, One Phillips VCR Television, One Remington Monitor and Cameras, One Sentinel Intercom and One Set of Tanita Scales v. State of Texas

Alvin L. Gaither, an inmate, appealed a trial court's forfeiture order concerning cash and various personal items. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo issued a directive for Gaither to pay a $125 filing fee within ten days. Gaither failed to comply with this order. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Clerk's notice regarding the filing fee.

Appeal DismissedForfeiture OrderFiling FeePro Se AppellantAppellate ProcedureNon-complianceTexas Court of AppealsInmate AppellantCivil ProcedureJudicial Dismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

Vann v. Vann

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Orange County, which awarded custody of her two daughters to the father. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that custody determinations are discretionary and accorded great weight on appeal due to the hearing court's opportunity to observe witness demeanor and the children's desires. The court reiterated that the paramount concern in custody disputes is the child's best interests, considering factors like home environment, parental guidance, financial status, and parental fitness. The Family Court conducted a thorough hearing, including witness testimony and in-camera interviews with the children, and its decision was found to have properly weighed the relevant factors.

Child CustodyFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewParental GuidanceFinancial StatusWitness DemeanorDiscretionary DecisionHearing CourtAffirmed Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1999

J. F. v. L. F.

The court addressed a long-standing and contentious custody dispute between a mother and father, spanning a decade and involving multiple judges. The central issue was the mother's successful parental alienation of their two children, aged 11 and 13, from their father. Despite previous joint custody arrangements, the mother's animosity led the children to reject regular visitation with their father. Based on extensive hearings, in camera interviews with the children, and unanimous expert testimony from three mental health professionals, the court determined that a change of custody was in the children's long-term emotional best interests. The decision acknowledged potential short-term disruption but concluded that continued residence with the mother would cause permanent psychological damage, ultimately awarding sole custody to the father and mandating therapy.

Parental Alienation SyndromeChild Custody ModificationBest Interests of ChildrenVisitation InterferenceFamily LawPsychological PoisoningSole Custody AwardTherapeutic InterventionJudicial DiscretionMental Health Evaluation
References
31
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05331
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2016

People v. Bonie

This case involves an appeal by nonparty News 12 The Bronx, L.L.C., and its representative Dina Sforza, against an order compelling compliance with a subpoena for unaired video footage. The People sought the footage from an interview with defendant Nasean Bonie, who was indicted for the murder of Ramona Moore. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the People's motion to compel, directing an in camera review and denying News 12's cross-motion to quash the subpoena. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It directed disclosure only of specific portions of the video footage where Bonie discusses killing the victim or their relationship, finding that the People met the necessary showing under New York's Shield Law for these parts, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that the trial judge need not issue further findings.

Subpoena enforcementJournalistic privilegeShield LawNonconfidential materialIn camera reviewCircumstantial evidenceMurder indictmentVideo footageAppellate reviewFreedom of the press
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 184 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