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

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2009

In re Moona C.

An order of disposition from the Family Court, New York County, entered on October 26, 2009, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. This order brought up for review a fact-finding order from May 1, 2009, which determined that the respondent mother neglected her children. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as it was subsumed by the appeal from the dispositional order. The court also noted that the respondent's challenge to an interim visitation suspension was moot and not properly before the court. Furthermore, the Family Court's decision to permit one of the children, Robina C., to testify in camera was upheld, as it appropriately balanced the respondent's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being by allowing contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel. The affidavit of the social worker supporting the in camera testimony was found sufficient despite challenges to her expertise.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsIn Camera TestimonyDue ProcessVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional OrderMootness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 1998

In re Jennifer V.

The New York County Family Court's order of disposition, which placed a child in a protective agency's custody for 12 months due to a finding of neglect, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of evidence, demonstrating the infliction of excessive corporal punishment against the child and acts of violence against the child's mother in the child's presence. The appellate court found the evidence sufficiently corroborated and rejected the argument that the lack of eyewitness testimony for corporal punishment warranted reversal, emphasizing the respondent's violent tendencies posed an imminent danger to the child. Furthermore, the disposition was justified by a psychiatric report on the respondent and social worker testimony, which indicated the respondent's profound indifference to the effects of his behavior on the child, thus warranting the transfer of custody and a mandate for psychiatric counseling to address his violent tendencies and improve his parental suitability.

Child NeglectCorporal PunishmentDomestic ViolenceChild CustodyParental FitnessPsychiatric CounselingFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyImminent Danger
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1994

In re the Guardianship & Custody of Angela Marie N.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of disposition in Family Court, New York County, which terminated a respondent's parental rights. The termination was based on a finding of mental illness, supported by extensive unrefuted evidence including the respondent's chronic degenerating mental condition, frequent hospitalizations, and failure to adhere to any treatment plan. A court-appointed psychiatrist concluded there was no possibility of improvement in the foreseeable future, confirming the respondent's inability to provide adequate care for her children. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence for the termination and that the disposition, committing guardianship to the petitioner, was in the children's best interests. Furthermore, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that strategic decisions should not be reevaluated with hindsight.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild WelfareGuardianshipIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildSocial Services Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batthany v. Scully

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by petitioner Everett Batthany, an inmate, to annul a Superintendent’s hearing disposition from February 17, 1987. Batthany was found guilty of attempted escape despite claiming mental incapacity. The Hearing Officer, Captain Carol Reynolds, based her decision on off-the-record conversations with psychiatric staff, which Batthany argued violated his due process rights. The Commissioner of Correctional Services had previously reduced Batthany's punishment. The court found that Batthany’s right to confront evidence was violated by the reliance on off-the-record information. Consequently, the court annulled the original disposition, ordered all related records expunged, and directed a rehearing where Batthany should be permitted to interpose the affirmative defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

Inmate RightsDue ProcessSuperintendent's HearingMental Health DefenseAttempted EscapeOff-the-Record EvidencePrison DisciplineCPLR Article 78AnnulmentRehearing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ3194339 (SFO 0437494) ADJ3391559 (SFO 0494203) ADJ748288 (SFO 0494205)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

AMED NAGI ALI vs. ABLE MAINTENANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reinstate the applicant's three workers' compensation cases, which had been dismissed without prejudice. The applicant successfully argued that dismissal orders were erroneously reinstated because notices were sent to an incorrect address while he was out of the country. The Board found the petition was timely filed and emphasized the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, particularly for unrepresented employees. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision on the merits.

ReconsiderationOrder Reinstating Orders of DismissalRescindedDismissal without prejudiceIndustrial InjuryHead InjuryCardiovascular SystemRespiratory SystemStressWrong Address
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Parul P.

This case involves an appeal by a father in a child protective proceeding under Family Court Act article 10. The Family Court in Queens County initially issued a fact-finding order on October 12, 1990, determining that the father had sexually abused his daughter, Parul. This was followed by an order of disposition on January 17, 1991, which prohibited the father from residing with the child without prior court application and mandated supervised visitation. On appeal, the higher court dismissed the appeal concerning the fact-finding order as it was superseded, but affirmed the order of disposition. The court found the Family Court's finding of abuse to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, relying on consistent out-of-court statements from the child and corroborating expert testimony from a psychologist. The father's remaining arguments were deemed without merit.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Fact-Finding OrderOrder of DispositionSupervised VisitationExpert TestimonyChild Sexual Abuse SyndromeCorroboration of Child's StatementPreponderance of Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,059 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