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. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2003

In re Daquan D.

The case involves the affirmation of Family Court orders that terminated the parental rights of a respondent mother to her four children (Daquan D., Dominique H., Jamel C., and David H.) and committed their custody and guardianship to a petitioner for adoption. The court found permanent neglect, citing the child care agency's diligent efforts to support the parental relationship which were frustrated by the respondent's lack of cooperation, including her failure to sustain participation in programs and her prolonged incarceration. The record supported the finding that the agency made diligent efforts despite the respondent's non-cooperation. Furthermore, the disposition to free the children for adoption was deemed in their best interests, supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This decision was based on the respondent's extensive incarceration and continuous failure to assume parental responsibilities, ultimately offering the children a chance for a stable familial environment.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectBest Interests of ChildFoster CareAdoptionParental CooperationDiligent EffortsIncarcerationFamily LawChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Willard L.

Respondent's two children were removed from his care in 2002 due to incidents of domestic violence, drug use, and violations of protection orders. The petitioner subsequently initiated a proceeding to adjudicate the children as permanently neglected and to terminate respondent's parental rights, which the Family Court granted. On appeal, the court found that the petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship by offering numerous counseling and treatment opportunities and arranging supervised visitation. However, the respondent failed to plan for his children's future by not correcting the conditions that led to their removal and not benefiting from the services provided due to his unwillingness to change. Considering the history of domestic violence, multiple violations of protection orders, respondent's admitted cocaine possession, arrests, and incarceration, alongside the children's successful placement in foster homes with potential for adoption, the court concluded that terminating respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The order was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseOrders of ProtectionChild WelfareFamily Reunification EffortsBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Alicia G.

The case concerns a petition for permanent neglect filed by Heartshare Human Services against Hanna Muhammad and Al G., the incarcerated parents of Alicia. The court examined whether the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and if the parents adequately planned for Alicia's future, considering their incarceration. The petition against the mother, Hanna Muhammad, was dismissed as the agency failed to convincingly prove a lack of planning or cooperation. However, the petition against the father, Al G., was granted due to his failure to plan, with his disposition adjourned to a later date. The decision highlights the nuanced application of Social Services Law § 384-b for incarcerated parents.

Permanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsSocial Services LawParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsParental PlanningFoster CareChild WelfareNew York Family LawChild Best Interests
References
10
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 Candice K.

Respondent, the father of two daughters, had his children placed in the petitioner's care in 1994 due to his incarceration and prior complaints of inadequate supervision. In August 1995, the petitioner initiated proceedings to terminate the respondent's parental rights on grounds of abandonment. The Family Court granted the petition, a decision which the respondent subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, citing clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to maintain sufficient contact with his children or the agency for the statutory six-month period, demonstrating an intent to abandon his parental rights despite the petitioner's efforts to facilitate visits.

AbandonmentParental Rights TerminationFamily LawChild WelfareFoster Care PlacementIncarceration ImpactParent-Child ContactStatutory Six-Month PeriodClear and Convincing EvidenceSocial Services Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2015

Matter of Alexsander N.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County. Petitioner initiated a permanent neglect proceeding against respondent, the mother of a child, which resulted in a suspended judgment due to respondent's failure to plan for the child's future and non-compliance with mental health treatment. Petitioner later filed a petition alleging respondent violated the suspended judgment by failing to disclose an arrest and subsequent incarceration, which led to missed appointments and visits. The Family Court revoked the suspended judgment and terminated respondent's parental rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that respondent failed to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment and that the termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectSuspended Judgment ViolationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealNon-compliance with Court OrderBest Interests of ChildMental Health IssuesChild SupervisionAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,163 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