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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganci v. Berry

The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contending he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. He had been convicted in Suffolk County, New York, for two bank robberies. Petitioner claimed F.B.I. reports containing witness descriptions inconsistent with his appearance were wrongfully withheld, and that local prosecutors failed to disclose witness statements describing the robber's eye color as brown, despite his blue eyes. The court found that state prosecutors were not obligated to furnish F.B.I. reports they had never seen or possessed. However, it ruled that the local prosecutors should have disclosed the witness statements regarding eye color, as they were inconsistent with the petitioner's blue eyes. Despite this, the court determined there was no reasonable probability that this evidence would have changed the jury's verdict, given other strong identification evidence and corroborating factors related to the second robbery. Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationExculpatory EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductBank RobberyWitness IdentificationMateriality of EvidenceDue ProcessState Remedies ExhaustionFBI Investigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06663
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2016

Matter of Ricardo M.J. (Kiomara A.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found the respondent mother, Kiomara A., neglected her child, Ricardo M.J., through excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's determination was supported by evidence including the child's statements to a social worker about being beaten with a spiked belt, the mother's admission, and observations of bruises on the child's body. The child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by the physical evidence and statements made to a detective. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, noting the mother offered inconsistent explanations for the child's injuries. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentEvidenceBruisesChild InterviewSocial Worker Testimony
References
4
Case No. ADJ10806223
Regular
Sep 17, 2019

ISRAEL RAMOS vs. THE CRÈME SHOP, INC., EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ found the applicant's testimony regarding an industrial injury in 2015 to be not credible due to significant inconsistencies. These inconsistencies were contradicted by medical reports from subsequent treatment and the applicant's own statements to physicians. Additionally, the Board affirmed that the Statute of Limitations barred the claim, as there was insufficient evidence of timely reporting or provision of medical treatment by the employer.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityunrebutted testimonyStatute of Limitationsmedical reportingcontemporaneous evidenceapplicant testimonycredibility determinationemployer awareness
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02287
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2025

Matter of Jahzara J.S. (Joshua S., Jr.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from Family Court, Bronx County, which found the respondent father neglected the subject child. The court determined that the finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The child's out-of-court statements alleging maltreatment were sufficiently corroborated by multiple disclosures to different individuals and by daycare workers' observations of significant changes in the child's demeanor and the exhibition of age-inappropriate behavior following an alleged incident. The Family Court's decision to credit the child's statements, despite minor inconsistencies, was upheld.

NeglectChild MaltreatmentOut-of-Court StatementsCorroborationPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewChild's DemeanorAge-Inappropriate BehaviorSocial Services
References
7
Case No. ADJ10204167
Regular
Oct 17, 2017

MARTIN POIRIER vs. MERCY HOUSING, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant suffered injuries from an automobile accident. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original finding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to admit the police report and applicant's recorded statement into evidence. While acknowledging issues with applicant's credibility, the Board affirmed the original finding, concluding that deviations from the commute route were minor and foreseeable. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant's inconsistent statements and significant unaccounted-for time constituted a substantial deviation, thus abandoning employment.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulerequired vehicle exceptionsubstantial deviationabandonment of employmentcredibility assessmentpolice reportrecorded statementcustom routeincidental personal acts
References
21
Case No. ADJ10303873
Regular
Jan 13, 2020

Alfred Hunt vs. CEMEX; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY C/O GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior finding that applicant sustained a low back injury while employed as a cement truck driver. Despite applicant's delay in reporting the injury and prior inconsistent statements regarding previous industrial injuries, the Board found his trial testimony credible. The Board relied on the administrative law judge's credibility determination, supported by the QME report, to conclude that the applicant met his burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment. A dissenting commissioner argued that inconsistencies and prior claims warranted rejection of the applicant's credibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderIndustrial InjuryCement Truck DriverCredibilityTimely ReportingBurden of ProofAOE/COEPreexisting Condition
References
1
Case No. ADJ10159316
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

Rowdy Rushing vs. Foster Farms

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that Rowdy Rushing did not sustain a left shoulder injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment with Foster Farms. The Administrative Law Judge found the applicant's testimony regarding a pallet striking his arm not credible, noting inconsistencies with coworker statements and medical reports. Specifically, the applicant's account of the incident and the mechanism of injury was deemed unlikely and not supported by Dr. Ozaeta's medical opinion, which concluded the MRI findings were inconsistent with the described incident. Therefore, the Board affirmed the judge's take-nothing order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFoster FarmsRowdy RushingFindings and OrderTake nothing orderIndustrial injuryLeft shoulderOctober 92015Taper/packer
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,560 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