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. 2019-03475; Docket Nos. B-762-18, B-763-18, B-764-18, B-765-18
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Margaret K.K. (Alicia A.)

Alicia A. (mother) appealed the Family Court of Rockland County's order terminating her parental rights to her four children due to mental illness. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning two children (William K. and Margaret K. K.) as academic because they had reached the age of majority. For the remaining children, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, ADHD, and PTSD) rendered her unable to provide proper care. The court also determined that the mother received effective assistance of counsel, despite counsel not attending a court-ordered psychological examination, given counsel's detailed cross-examination of the evaluator and securing an independent psychiatric evaluation. The decision upheld the termination of parental rights for the children still under the court's jurisdiction.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness GroundIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law § 384-bFamily Court ActChild NeglectBipolar DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAttention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2014

B.K. v. New York City Department of Education

G.K., a child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, faced educational challenges for the 2011-2012 school year. His parents, B.K. and Y.K., initiated legal action against the New York City Department of Education, alleging that the Department failed to provide G.K. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for G.K.'s private special education program and direct funding for home-based therapy, appealing an administrative decision that had previously denied their claims. The Department subsequently filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court, after conducting an independent review of the administrative record and giving due weight to the state administrative proceedings, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Department's cross-motion, concluding that the May 2011 Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the Department was procedurally and substantively adequate.

Individualized Education ProgramFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementDue Process HearingBehavioral Intervention PlanFunctional Behavioral AssessmentParental Participation
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schreiber v. K-Sea Transportation Corp.

Nicholas Schreiber, a seaman employed by K-Sea Transportation, sustained injuries. After receiving maintenance and medical expenses, he agreed to K-Sea's arbitration program for further claims in exchange for advance wages. Following a deterioration of his condition and additional surgeries, Schreiber sued K-Sea under the Jones Act. K-Sea initiated arbitration, but Schreiber sought to stay it due to the substantial filing fees and his claim of being unaware of his rights. The Supreme Court granted a permanent stay, deeming the agreement unconscionable and a waiver of jury trial rights. This appellate court reversed, finding the agreement was not a release and the financial burden was speculative. The case was remanded to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine if Schreiber's waiver of Jones Act rights and agreement to arbitrate was freely and knowingly entered into, considering his status as a ward of admiralty.

Jones ActArbitration AgreementSeaman InjuriesPersonal Injury ClaimWaiver of RightsFederal Arbitration ActEmployment ContractsAppellate ReviewRemand for HearingMaritime Law
References
21
Case No. 884/15
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2025

People v. K.D.

K.D., convicted of Murder in the Second Degree and originally sentenced to 18 years to life, sought resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The court found that K.D. was a victim of substantial domestic violence by the decedent, Norberto Valentin Cruz, which significantly contributed to her criminal behavior, and that her original sentence was unduly harsh. Despite the severity of the crime and the victim's family's anguish, the court considered K.D.'s remorse, rehabilitation efforts, lack of prior criminal history, and strong family support. Balancing these factors, the court vacated the original sentence and ordered a resentencing of 11 years imprisonment followed by 5 years of post-release supervision.

Domestic Violence Survivors Justice ActDVSJAResentencingMurder Second DegreeDomestic Violence VictimCriminal Procedure Law 440.47Penal Law 60.12Judicial DecisionRehabilitation EffortsMitigation Factors
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. K & M Jewelry, Inc.

Nora Holmes, a retail sales clerk for Gimbels, Inc., sustained personal injuries when a display case owned by K & M Jewelry, Inc., fell. She received workers' compensation benefits from Gimbels and subsequently attempted to sue K & M Jewelry, Inc., for negligence. The core issue in this appeal was the validity of service of the summons and complaint upon K & M Jewelry, Inc. A special referee initially upheld the service, and the Supreme Court confirmed this report. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion, finding that K & M Jewelry, Inc. was not properly served as the recipient, a 'Mrs. Kahn,' was not an authorized agent of the corporate defendant.

Service of ProcessCorporate ServicePersonal InjuryNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAgencyAuthorized AgentSummons and ComplaintJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

4200 Avenue K LLC v. Fishman

This case involves a dispute between Employer, 4200 Avenue K, LLC, and Local 32B-32J, SEIU, AFL-CIO, regarding a collective bargaining agreement. The employer moved for summary judgment to permanently stay arbitration, asserting it had properly canceled the agreement and withdrawn union recognition. The union cross-moved to compel arbitration, arguing the cancellation was ineffective due to the employer's failure to negotiate a successor agreement, and that the broad arbitration clause covered disputes over contract interpretation and termination. District Judge Robert L. Carter denied the employer's motion and granted the union's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitrability of the dispute, including the interpretation of the evergreen clause and the agreement's termination, falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. The court also found the motion to compel arbitration to be timely and that deferral to the NLRB was not required as the central issue was contractual interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEvergreen ClauseContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentLabor DisputesUnion RecognitionFederal CourtsNLRB JurisdictionTimeliness
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PK Ex Rel. PK v. Bedford Cent. School Dist.

Parents P.K. and P.K. filed a lawsuit against Bedford Central School District under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), appealing a State Review Officer's decision. They sought tuition reimbursement for their minor child P.K.'s unilateral placement in private residential schools, arguing the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The District had recommended its Keys to Emotional Awareness (KEA) program, believing P.K.'s difficulties stemmed from substance abuse rather than his emotional disturbance. The Court affirmed the administrative decisions, granting summary judgment to the District, holding that the IEPs were appropriate and that the District was not obligated to pay for substance-abuse treatment.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramTuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementResidential PlacementEmotional DisturbanceSubstance AbuseSchool District ResponsibilitySummary Judgment
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04683
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2018

Matter of K.G. v. C.H.

This case involves K.G., the ex-partner of C.H., seeking parental standing for custody and visitation of A., C.H.'s adopted child. K.G.'s claim is based on a 2007 agreement with C.H. to adopt and raise a child together, and alternatively, on equitable estoppel principles as defined by _Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C._ The Supreme Court denied K.G. standing, finding the 2007 agreement terminated when the romantic relationship ended. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding regarding the termination of the preadoption agreement but remanded the case for further proceedings on the equitable estoppel claim, noting the incomplete record and the necessity of hearing the child's voice.

Parental StandingEquitable EstoppelAdoption AgreementSame-Sex CouplesChild CustodyVisitation RightsDomestic Relations LawPreadoption AgreementAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David J.

This dissenting opinion argues against the Family Court's decision to return Candice, Christine, and David to their parents, Roslyn K. and Steven K., after the petitioner charged the parents with neglect. The parents previously fled the state with the children, violating a court order. The dissent cites medical neglect of the daughters, alleged physical abuse and extreme isolation of David by his stepfather, and the mother's refusal to send David to school. The dissenting judge concludes that the parents' non-compliance and bizarre behavior create an imminent risk to the children's well-being, advocating for continued foster care.

Child neglectParental non-complianceChild welfareFamily Court proceedingsChild abuse allegationsMedical care refusalEducational neglectDissenting opinionBest interests of childTemporary removal order
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04359
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Parsons v. County of Steuben

Plaintiff Steven J. Parsons sued the County of Steuben, Motorola Solutions, Inc., and Mid-State Communications & Electronics, Inc., for injuries sustained when a ladder fell on him at a worksite, alleging Labor Law and common-law negligence violations. The Supreme Court denied Parsons' motion for partial summary judgment and partially granted defendants' cross-motions, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the County and Motorola. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted Motorola's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence cause of action, and cross-claims for common-law indemnification and contribution against it, and affirmed the order as modified. The court found an issue of fact regarding contractual indemnification against Motorola.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkLadder AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related Hazard
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 360 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