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. 2007 NY Slip Op 27390
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2007

Matter of A. J.

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a petition alleging that four-year-old T.J. sustained multiple injuries, including a second-degree burn, while in the care of her biological parents, Toni N. and Tyrell J. The parents had previously been found to have abused T.J. The court found the parents' explanations for the injuries incredible and inconsistent with medical testimony from Dr. Philip Hyden, an expert in pediatrics and child abuse. The court entered findings of abuse against both parents for T.J. under Family Court Act § 1012 (e) (i) and derivative abuse findings for her siblings, J.W., J.N., A.J., A.N., and T.S., under Family Court Act § 1012 (e) (ii). Furthermore, the court determined that T.J. was "repeatedly abused" as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (b) due to the prior abuse findings and the unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate the parents. However, derivative findings of repeated abuse were not made for the siblings.

Child AbuseRepeated AbuseDerivative AbuseFoster CareParental RightsFamily Court ActSocial Services LawPhysical InjuryMedical ExpertChild Protection Unit
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. J & T Properties

Henry Payne sustained injuries after falling from a building roof owned by J & T Properties, while employed by Kissane Water Conditioning, Inc. The initial Supreme Court order denied summary judgment motions by KWC and J & T, and partially granted plaintiffs' cross motion related to a Labor Law § 240 claim. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to KWC and J & T, and dismissing the complaint. The reversal was based on the finding that John and Timothy Kissane, partners of J & T, were also co-employees of Payne at KWC, establishing they were "in the same employ". This "same employ" relationship, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), bars the action against J & T, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Same Employ DoctrineThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall from RoofEmployer LiabilityCo-employee Immunity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haughton v. T & J Electrical Corp.

Plaintiff Archebald C. Haughton, Jr., a maintenance worker at Hudson Valley Community College, suffered severe injuries from electrocution while attempting to restore power during an outage. Despite knowing that the power company, Niagara Mohawk, was assembling a crew, plaintiff's supervisors directed him to work on high-voltage equipment in a dark and smoky room, without proper protective gear. Plaintiff and his wife sued Niagara Mohawk and T & J Electrical Corporation, an electrical contractor, alleging breach of duty of care. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the actions of the plaintiff and his supervisors constituted an unforeseeable intervening act. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, absolving the defendants of liability.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseIntervening ActElectrocutionWorkplace AccidentHigh VoltageDuty of CareNegligenceAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tanya T.

This case concerns an appeal from an Albany County Family Court order which adjudicated four children, Tanya T., Tabitha T., Deion T., and Davonna T., as abused and/or neglected. The petition alleged that their father sexually molested Davonna in Deion’s presence. The Family Court issued orders of supervision and protection, mandating treatment for the father and prohibiting visitation. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court’s findings, determining that the children's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by behavioral changes, expert testimony, and consistent statements. The appellate court also upheld the denial of the father's visitation petition, concluding it was not in the children's best interests due to their fear and the father's history of violence.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual MolestationCorroboration of Child StatementsBehavioral ChangesExpert TestimonyDenial of VisitationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2008

Magen v. Hartford Fire Insurance

This case addresses whether the prompt disclaimer requirement of the Insurance Law is triggered when one insurance carrier notifies another carrier on behalf of a mutual insured, requesting defense and indemnity. The court reiterates its holding in Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., confirming that such a tender triggers the insurer's obligation to issue a timely disclaimer under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). In this specific instance, J.T. Magen's insurer, Travelers, tendered notice to Hartford on behalf of J.T. Magen, IDA, and Magen David Yeshiva, who were additional insureds under a Hartford policy. Hartford's 51-day delay in disclaiming coverage was deemed untimely, precluding them from denying coverage. The Supreme Court's decision granting J.T. Magen summary judgment was affirmed.

Insurance LawDisclaimer of CoverageTimely NoticeAdditional InsuredDeclaratory JudgmentCondition PrecedentInter-insurer ClaimsConstruction Site InjurySubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael Anthony Vincent J.

The Family Court of Bronx County initially dismissed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Lillian T. and Kevin Vincent J. concerning their children, Michael Anthony Vincent J. and Rose Antionette J. This appellate court reversed that decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner agency, St. Christopher-Ottilie and the Commissioner of Social Services, made diligent efforts to reunite the family. The respondents were found to have permanently neglected their children by failing to maintain consistent contact and refusing to cooperate with necessary services. Consequently, the appellate court reinstated the petitions, entered findings of neglect, and remanded the matter for a dispositional hearing.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectDiligent EffortsSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealBronx CountyFoster Care PlacementParental Non-cooperationEvidentiary StandardsAppellate Reversal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re A. J.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a petition alleging that four-year-old T.J. sustained a second-degree burn, bruises, lacerations, a bite mark, and numerous scars while in the care of her biological parents, Toni N. and Tyrell J. T.J. had a history of abuse and had recently returned home after nearly three years in foster care following previous abuse findings. Medical professionals, including a physician’s assistant and Dr. Philip Hyden, testified to the severity and nature of T.J.'s injuries. The parents provided multiple, inconsistent, and scientifically incredible explanations for the injuries, which were rejected by the medical experts and the court. The court found clear and convincing evidence that both parents abused T.J., derivatively abused her five siblings (J.W., J.N., A.J., A.N., and T.S.), and that T.J. was repeatedly abused under the Social Services Law.

Child AbusePhysical InjuryBurn InjuryDerivative AbuseRepeated AbuseParental NeglectMedical Expert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentFamily Court ActSocial Services Law
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06859
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Sariyah L.J. (Antonio J.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that denied Antonio J.'s motion to vacate a default order which determined him to be a notice-only father. The court found that Antonio J. failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, having chosen to attend a meeting with his shelter worker without notifying his attorney or the court. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as his affidavit did not establish substantial and continuous contact or financial support for the child, Sariyah L.J., in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]. The appeal from the underlying August 20, 2018 order was dismissed as nonappealable.

Family LawPaternityDefault JudgmentVacaturParental RightsChild CustodyAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInfant CaseMotion Practice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. & T. Cousins Co. v. Shoe & Leather Workers Industrial Union

The court considered an order that granted a motion to strike out the first separate defense presented in the appellant's answer. This order was subsequently affirmed by the judicial body. Additionally, the decision included the affirmation of ten dollars in costs and disbursements. Notably, the court did not provide a formal opinion for this decision. The panel of judges, consisting of Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Seudder, Tompkins, and Davis, JJ., all concurred with the outcome.

motion practiceappellate reviewaffirmative defensecourt costsconcurring judgesjudicial orderprocedural law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Fabrizio v. J. R. J. Concrete Corp.

Claimant, a construction foreman, sustained injuries in 1976 while employed by J. R. J. Concrete Corporation and was subsequently awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed the award amount, contending that the claimant had intentionally limited his income after the injury to continue receiving Social Security benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not limit his income. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the board's determination regarding factual questions and credibility, thus affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsSocial Security BenefitsAccidental DisabilityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConstruction ForemanInjury ClaimBoard Determination
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,644 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