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

Hart v. Sullivan

Plaintiff June Hart appealed an order denying a motion to dismiss her complaint against P & C Food Markets, Inc., and two managerial employees, Kenneth Sullivan and Mike Buker. Hart alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress due to sexual advances by Sullivan and Buker, and sex discrimination by the corporate defendant under Executive Law § 296. She also included a derivative claim for her husband. The court modified the order, dismissing the intentional tort claim against the employer due to the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision, as no willful act by the employer was alleged. The husband's derivative claim was also barred. Furthermore, the sex discrimination claim against the employer was dismissed because respondeat superior does not apply in such cases without allegations of the employer's knowledge or acquiescence.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRespondeat SuperiorDerivative ClaimsMotion to DismissManagerial LiabilityCivil Rights ViolationsExecutive Law
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24320
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

D.P. v. S.P.

This case involves a custody dispute between D.P. (Plaintiff) and S.P. (Defendant) concerning their two minor children in Westchester County, New York. The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to release psychotherapy notes and medical records from her former and current mental health professionals (Dr. O.K. and Dr. A.L.). The defendant argued these records were essential for trial preparation, alleging the plaintiff had a personality disorder and received in-patient psychiatric treatment. The plaintiff and the treating professionals' counsel opposed, asserting confidentiality and that substantial medical records had already been disclosed to a court-appointed forensic evaluator. The court affirmed that psychotherapy notes can be discoverable in custody cases but ruled that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the specific information sought was not already available from the extensive records previously provided. Consequently, the defendant's motion for disclosure was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion to deny the disclosure was granted.

Custody DisputeChild WelfarePsychotherapy Notes DisclosureMental Health RecordsParental FitnessConfidentiality WaiverProtective OrderIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the ChildForensic Evaluation
References
15
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08026
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Chloe P. Mc. (Lajohn M.--Danielle P.)

This case involves an appeal by Danielle P. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated August 21, 2013, which awarded Lajohn M. supervised visitation with the subject child, Chloe P. Mc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal. The court found that no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party, as Danielle P. had consented to the supervised visits.

Family LawChild VisitationSupervised VisitationAppeal DismissedConsent OrderAppellate ProcedureParental RightsChild WelfareFamily CourtAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03590
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2021

Matter of Isabela P. (Jacob P.)

In this case, Jacob P., the father, appealed an order of disposition from the Family Court, Queens County, which found that he neglected his child, Isabela P. The Administration for Children's Services initiated the proceeding, alleging the father failed to provide adequate supervision and guardianship. The Family Court's finding of neglect was based on evidence that the father repeatedly made false reports of sexual abuse against the mother in the child's presence and encouraged the child to corroborate these allegations. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father's actions created an imminent danger of emotional impairment to the child, thus failing to meet the minimum degree of parental care.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFalse AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewEmotional ImpairmentPreponderance of EvidenceJudicial DeferenceChild WelfareCustody Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case involves B.P. and A.P., parents of D.P., seeking relief against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to provide D.P. with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2009-2010 school year, arguing that the proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) was inappropriate and seeking tuition reimbursement for D.P.'s private schooling. The Court reviewed the decisions of the Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer, both of whom had denied tuition reimbursement. Ultimately, the District Court found that the education offered by the Defendant was appropriate under the IDEA, denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Individuals with Disabilities ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramTuition ReimbursementSummary Judgment MotionSpecial EducationLearning DisabilitiesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAdministrative ReviewParents' Rights
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08061 [166 AD3d 520]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Wroble v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng'g of N.Y., P.C.

Piotr Wroble and other employees of subcontractor PMJ Electrical Corp. initiated a breach of contract action against their employer and the general contractor, SLSCO, L.P., alleging failure to pay prevailing wages on a public works project. SLSCO, while bound by its contract with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection to ensure prevailing wages, included a clause prohibiting third-party claims. The general contractor moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the plaintiffs were not its direct employees and the exclusionary clause absolved it of liability. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Labor Law § 220 grants subcontractor employees the right to pursue breach of contract claims against general contractors for wage underpayments, and any contractual provision seeking to bar such actions is unenforceable as it violates public policy.

prevailing wageLabor Law § 220public works contractsubcontractorgeneral contractorthird-party beneficiarybreach of contractmotion to dismissappellate affirmationcontract clause invalidation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Joanne P.

This child protective proceeding addresses the corroboration standard for a child victim's out-of-court statements in a sexual abuse case. The 17-year-old child, Joanne P., alleged sexual abuse by her father, Gary P., when she was 13. Her mother, Voule P., was charged with neglect for failing to protect Joanne after being informed. The court found that Joanne's numerous attempts to flee her family home, ultimately becoming an out-of-State runaway to New York City, constituted sufficient corroboration for her out-of-court statements under Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi). Despite no medical evidence, validation testimony, or parental admissions, the court concluded that the petitioner established its case by a preponderance of credible evidence, finding Gary P. committed sexual abuse and Voule P. was negligent. Joanne P. was subsequently placed with the Commissioner of Social Services.

Child Protective ProceedingSexual AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration StandardOut-of-court StatementsRunaway ChildFamily Court Act Article 10Preponderance of EvidenceInterstate Compact on JuvenilesCredibility of Child Witness
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoisington Ex Rel. Hoisington v. County of Sullivan

In 1992, Nelida Hoisington placed her daughters, Camara and Cyre, with Bernadette and Vincent Gilmore. The Family Court of Sullivan County later declared the children neglected, placing them with Gilmore under the Department of Social Services' (DSS) supervision. In 1994, Camara was severely scalded while in Gilmore's care, leading to a lawsuit against Sullivan County and DSS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional rights violations and common law negligence. The court granted summary judgment to DSS, deeming it not amenable to suit under New York law. It also dismissed the § 1983 claims against Sullivan County, ruling that Camara's injury was due to negligence, not a constitutional violation, as no "deliberate indifference" was proven. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Summary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Constitutional RightsNegligenceFailure to TrainDeliberate IndifferenceFoster CareChild ProtectionMunicipal LiabilityPendent Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1988

In re James P.

This case involves a child protective petition filed against Ronald J. and Vivian P. concerning three children: James P., Ronald J., Jr., and Shaila J. The Family Court in New York County initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this dismissal, reinstating the petition and making new findings. Specifically, it found that James P. is an abused child by Ronald J., and James P., Ronald J., Jr., and Shaila J. are neglected children by Vivian P. The matter was remanded for a dispositional hearing before a different judge. The decision highlights the importance of corroborating out-of-court statements made by children regarding abuse or neglect, supported by expert testimony.

child protective petitionchild abusechild neglectsexual abusefamily courtappellate reviewcredibility of witnessesexpert testimonycorroborationremand
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,039 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