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
Sep 01, 2011

Errol S. v. Shelidah D.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order from New York County, dated September 1, 2011, which granted the father's petition to modify a joint custody arrangement and awarded him sole custody of his two children, with visitation rights to the respondent mother. The prior order had established joint custody with primary physical custody to the mother. The father sought modification due to concerns about the mother's inability to meet the children's basic hygiene and medical needs, as well as safety issues during their school commute. The Referee's decision to grant sole custody to the father was unanimously affirmed on appeal, citing a sound basis for credibility determinations against the mother, whose testimony was contradicted by multiple parties including the children's dentist. The court found that the father provided a stable home and addressed the children's needs, while the mother consistently failed to do so. The attorneys for the children also supported the affirmation, noting the children's satisfaction and well-being in the father's care.

Family LawChild CustodyJoint Custody ModificationSole Custody AwardParental FitnessChildren's WelfareMedical NeglectHygiene ConcernsCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maynard v. Maynard

Petitioner sought joint legal and physical custody of her children after the respondent, her ex-husband, unilaterally moved with them to Virginia. The Family Court of Essex County initially dismissed the petitioner's application, awarding custody to the respondent. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Family Court should have applied the legal standard for custody relocation cases. The Appellate Division agreed, noting that a custodial parent's move that deprives the noncustodial parent of customary contact is disfavored without exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Joint CustodyChild RelocationFamily LawCustody DisputeAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsBest Interests of the ChildDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActEssex County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1999

Yetter v. Jones

This case involves cross appeals from a Family Court order concerning child custody following the parties' 1995 divorce. Custody was initially awarded to the petitioner but later, after the petitioner's hospitalization, temporary custody shifted to the respondent. Both parties then petitioned for sole custody, leading the Family Court to award joint custody with the children's primary residence with the respondent. The Appellate Division reversed the joint custody award, determining that the parents' demonstrated bitterness and hostility made cooperative co-parenting impossible and thus joint custody an unworkable solution. Based on the petitioner's recurring mental health challenges, instances of poor judgment in relationships, and an unstable environment, contrasted with the respondent's more stable home life where the children were thriving, the court awarded sole custody to the respondent. The Appellate Division also affirmed the Family Court's discretion in not ordering home studies or additional psychological reports, given the available testimony and information.

custody disputejoint custody reversalsole custody awardparental mental healthchild welfarevisitation rightshostile co-parentsbest interests of childrenappellate reviewFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This case, presided over by Justice Paula J. Hepner, addresses the admissibility of out-of-court hearsay statements made by a child in a motion to modify an existing joint custody order. The petitioner sought to introduce such statements through witness testimony, which the respondent objected to. The court examined existing case law, noting that while the 'traditional requirements of the adversary system' may be relaxed in custody cases, there is no specific statutory or judicial exception for admitting a child's hearsay statements in custody proceedings unless the allegations are based on abuse or neglect. The court distinguished this case from those involving abuse or neglect, aligning with Ponzini v Ponzini, and ruled that since the modification petition does not allege abuse or neglect, the child's out-of-court statements are not admissible.

CustodyHearsay EvidenceChild StatementsFamily LawModification of CustodyAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse and NeglectFamily Court ActJoint CustodyJudicial Precedent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Kemp v. Kemp

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County concerning the modification of a prior custody order for two sons. The parties, who divorced in 1999, initially had a separation agreement granting joint legal custody with the respondent having primary physical custody. However, due to the respondent's subsequent criminal convictions, probation violation, and incarceration in January 2002, the petitioner gained actual physical custody of the children. The Family Court subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody to the petitioner, citing several factors including the respondent's incarceration, lack of credibility, failure to address self-destructive behavior, and the stable home environment provided by the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding it to be based on a sound and substantial record, and rejected the respondent's contentions regarding joint custody and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Custody ModificationFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildParental FitnessChange in CircumstancesIncarcerationMental Health EvaluationCredibility AssessmentJoint CustodySole Custody
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1992

George W. S. v. Donna S.

This case involves a child custody dispute between a father and mother regarding their daughter, born in 1984. The Family Court initially granted the parties joint custody, with the child residing with the father on the condition that he live within a five-mile radius of the former marital residence, and denied the mother's application for sole custody. Both parents have a history of psychological issues and demonstrated significant antagonism towards each other. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, finding that joint custody was inappropriate given the parents' inability to cooperate. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for complete psychological evaluations of the parties and the child, and for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

child custodyfamily lawjoint custodypsychological evaluationparental antagonismmental healthappellate reviewremittaldomestic relationsmarital residence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norwood v. Capone

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Otsego County Family Court which modified a prior custody order. The petitioner and respondent, divorced parents of two sons with special needs, Christopher and Anthony, were initially granted joint custody with physical custody to the respondent. The petitioner sought to modify this arrangement due to concerns about the respondent's care for the children, particularly regarding Anthony's behavioral issues and alleged physical violence by the respondent. A family offense petition was also filed. The Family Court transferred physical custody to the petitioner and allowed the children to relocate to Kentucky, while maintaining joint custody. The family offense petition was dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the change in circumstances and the children's best interests supported the modification, particularly for Anthony, as Christopher had aged out of Family Court jurisdiction. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's assessment of parental fitness and the decision to allow relocation.

Custody ModificationFamily OffenseChild CustodySpecial Needs ChildrenRelocationParental FitnessBest Interests of the ChildDomestic ViolenceTemporary Order of ProtectionFamily Court Appeal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1998

Millett v. Millett

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement for two sons. Initially, the parents had joint custody, but the petitioner sought to limit the respondent's visitation due to alleged mental abuse of the children. The Family Court awarded sole custody to the petitioner and mandated that the respondent's visitation be arranged by the children's therapist. On appeal, the court affirmed the termination of joint custody and the requirement for supervised visitation. However, it found that delegating the authority to determine the specifics of supervised visitation to a therapist was an improper delegation of judicial power. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Family Court of Warren County for further proceedings to establish the nature and frequency of the supervised contacts between the respondent and the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsChild mental healthParental fitnessFamily CourtModification of orderAppellate reviewRemandSupervised visitationDelegation of judicial authority
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2013

Matter of Lodge v. Lodge

The father and mother, divorced parents, initially had joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother. Due to the mother's work schedule, the child spent considerable time with the father. The mother subsequently moved to Brooklyn and took the child, prompting the father to seek full custody, while the mother cross-petitioned for permission to relocate. Family Court awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father and specified visitation for the mother. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, concluding that the mother failed to prove that the proposed relocation was in the child's best interest and that the father demonstrated a superior ability to provide a stable environment.

CustodyRelocationBest Interest of ChildParental FitnessJoint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitationFamily Court AppealUlster CountyFinancial Stability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chery v. Richardson

The father appealed the Family Court's denial of his petition to modify a 2004 custody order, seeking sole custody of his daughter. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that there was no sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification. The court noted that while the mother had prior parenting lapses, these issues, including hygiene and school attendance, had been ameliorated. The decision also considered the child's primary bond with her mother and half-siblings, the social worker's testimony, and the child's and her attorney's preference for custody to remain with the mother. Joint custody was deemed unfeasible due to the parents' inability to communicate.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildChange in CircumstancesParental FitnessChild PreferenceSibling RelationshipsFamily Court AppealAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,344 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