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

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent
References
13
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06808
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Matter of C.G. (E.G.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning a Family Court's finding of neglect against respondent mother, E.G., regarding her child, C.G. The court affirmed the finding of neglect, citing two instances of the mother's violent and belligerent conduct that necessitated social services intervention to ensure the child's safety and well-being. These incidents included an attempted stabbing and an altercation with police in Texas that frightened and injured the child. The court determined the child's emotional well-being was at imminent risk due to the mother's actions. The appeal of the dispositional order was dismissed as moot because its terms had expired, and the child had been discharged back to the mother's care. The court also rejected the mother's contention regarding conforming pleadings to proof, finding ample notice was provided.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineFact-Finding DeterminationDispositional OrderChild SafetyProtective ServicesViolent Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.G. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs P.G. and D.G., on behalf of their minor child J.G., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). They sought reimbursement for J.G.'s enrollment at Eagle Hill School for the 2010-2011 academic year, alleging the DOE failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The court reviewed an administrative decision by a State Review Officer (SRO) from April 6, 2012, which found DOE's individualized education program (IEP) for J.G. adequate and reversed a prior Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision. The court denied the parents' motion in part and granted the DOE's motion in part, affirming the SRO's findings on the IEP's procedural and substantive soundness. However, the court remanded the issue of the appropriateness of a 12:1:1 classroom placement to the SRO for further consideration.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementAdministrative ReviewState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerProcedural AdequacySubstantive Adequacy
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Erin G.

Patrick G. appealed two Family Court orders from Queens County concerning child sexual abuse against his daughter, Erin G. The initial orders found him guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and directed him to stay away from Erin until her eighteenth birthday. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning the first order as superseded. The court affirmed the dispositional order, allowing for future applications for supervised visitation. The decision affirmed the Family Court's finding of abuse, concluding that Erin G.'s sworn in-camera testimony, demonstration with anatomically correct dolls, and expert validation sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court statements. The appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and undue harshness of the protective order were rejected.

Child protective servicesSexual abuseChild testimonyCorroborationIneffective assistance of counselOrder of protectionFamily Court ActAppellate reviewExpert witnessAnatomically correct dolls
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicole G.

The Rockland County Department of Social Services appealed two Family Court orders concerning child protective proceedings against Nicole G. and Daniella G., which had denied petitions and dismissed the proceedings. The appeal affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Nicole G.'s out-of-court statements regarding her father's alleged abuse were insufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Although witnesses cross-corroborated each other's testimony and Nicole G. provided a narrative, she refused to testify. An expert witness also failed to provide the necessary corroborating evidence with a reasonable degree of certainty. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingsFamily Court Act Article 10Child AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration of StatementsOut-of-Court StatementsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding HearingAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yamillette G.

This case concerns the death of 19-month-old Hailey G. and the subsequent motion for summary judgment filed by the Administration for Children’s Services against the respondent mother, Marlene M., and the respondent father, Edwin G. The motion sought findings of abuse and severe abuse following their criminal convictions for manslaughter related to Hailey's death. The court granted the motion in part, affirming findings of abuse and derivative abuse against both respondents under the Family Court Act. It also found Marlene M. severely abused Hailey and both respondents derivatively severely abused Yamillette under Social Services Law. The decision clarified the application of severe abuse findings, particularly for a non-parent of the deceased child.

Child FatalityManslaughter ConvictionSevere Child AbuseDerivative AbuseSummary JudgmentParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesDepraved Indifference
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2007

In re G.S.

A nursing home, Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, filed a petition for the appointment of a guardian of the property for G.S., an alleged incapacitated person, citing an outstanding debt of over $200,000. G.S.'s son, D.R., held a power of attorney and health care proxy, managing her finances, including the proceeds from the sale of her home. The nursing home alleged D.R. mishandled funds and was uncooperative, seeking to revoke the power of attorney. The court, however, found no clear and convincing evidence of mishandling, and G.S. reaffirmed her trust in her son. The court denied the petition, emphasizing that a guardianship application is not the appropriate avenue for debt collection and that G.S. had a sufficient plan for her affairs through her son.

GuardianshipIncapacitationPower of AttorneyMental Hygiene LawFinancial Mismanagement AllegationNursing Home LitigationDebt CollectionFiduciary ResponsibilityCourt DiscretionElder Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2013

In re the Adoption of a Child Whose First Name is G.

This case addresses whether two close personal friends, KAL and LEL, who are not married or in a romantic relationship but co-parent a child, G., can be her joint legal adoptive parents. KAL initially adopted G. from Ethiopia, and LEL, who jointly planned the adoption and functions as G.'s father, petitioned to become her second legal parent with KAL's consent. The court interpreted "intimate partners" in Domestic Relations Law § 110 broadly, considering legislative intent to expand adoption eligibility and the child's best interests, finding that the shared and intentional parenting relationship between KAL and LEL qualifies as intimate. The decision also affirmed that LEL could adopt as an "adult unmarried person" and that KAL's parental rights would not be terminated under Domestic Relations Law § 117. Ultimately, the court found it was in G.'s best interests to have both KAL and LEL as legal parents, ensuring her security and access to full benefits.

Second-Parent AdoptionUnmarried Partners AdoptionIntimate PartnersNon-Traditional Family StructureCo-ParentingChild's Best InterestsDomestic Relations LawStatutory InterpretationParental RightsAdoption Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caplan v. American Baby, Inc.

Frank Caplan sued American Baby Inc. (ABI) for copyright and trademark infringement. ABI filed three counterclaims, two seeking declaratory relief regarding the validity of Caplan's trademark and non-infringement of copyright, and a third alleging a Sherman Antitrust Act violation. Caplan moved to dismiss all counterclaims. The court denied Caplan's motion to dismiss the first two counterclaims, finding them not redundant to the complaint. For the third counterclaim, alleging a 'sham' lawsuit under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the court deferred its decision, allowing limited discovery to determine if ABI could make a threshold showing of sham activity, citing the need for greater specificity in antitrust claims impacting First Amendment rights.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementSherman Antitrust ActCounterclaimsMotion to DismissNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham ExceptionFirst AmendmentDeclaratory ReliefFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jayson G.

Respondent mother Candi G. appealed a Family Court order from Jefferson County, which had denied her motion for leave to renew. The original Family Court order found she had abused and neglected her two children, having admitted to subjecting the older child to needless medical procedures that posed a risk to the child's health. The court placed both children in the custody of the petitioner. Candi G. sought to vacate her admission, claiming it was not knowingly made based on a social worker's alleged representation. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that Candi G. was properly advised, understood the proceedings, made the admission after consulting her attorney, and failed to demonstrate good cause to vacate the order.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewMotion to RenewAdmission of GuiltParental RightsCustody DisputeDue ProcessJudicial Discretion
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 515 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