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
May 27, 1998

In re Unborn Child

The petitioner, Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, successfully moved for summary judgment, asserting that respondent Sierra K.'s unborn child was derivatively neglected. This finding was based on Sierra K.'s history of drug abuse, her failure to comply with prior court orders for rehabilitation, and the termination of parental rights for her four previous children, with a fifth born testing positive for cocaine. The court found that Sierra K.'s continued drug use during her current pregnancy constituted a fundamental defect in her understanding of parental duties, placing the unborn child at substantial risk. The decision affirmed that an unborn child is considered a legal personality under Family Court Act article 10 and is entitled to protection from intentional acts of harm by its mother, rejecting the respondent's arguments against legal personality for the unborn. Consequently, derivative neglect was established, and a dispositional hearing was scheduled.

Unborn child rightsDerivative neglectMaternal drug abuseParental rights terminationFamily Court ActSummary judgmentFetal protectionLegal personality of fetusConstitutional lawPublic policy
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rebecca X.

This case involves appeals from six Family Court orders that adjudicated Rebecca X., Carissa Y., and Brittany Y. as abused and/or neglected children. Brittany Y. accused the respondent (her mother's boyfriend) of sexual abuse, which was corroborated by medical examinations and social worker assessments despite attempts by her mother and the respondent to influence her statements. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and derivative neglect for her sisters. The respondent was deemed a legally responsible person due to his cohabitation and disciplinary role. The appellate court affirmed all orders, concluding that Brittany's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated, the respondent was properly identified as legally responsible, and the findings of derivative neglect were amply supported. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected.

Sexual abuseChild neglectCorroborated testimonyDerivative findingsParental dutyMedical evidenceWitness intimidationFamily Court proceedingsAppellant rightsAbuse adjudication
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2014

Matter of Marcus JJ.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, which granted a petition to adjudicate the respondent's children neglected. The respondent, the biological mother of two sons, argued that she was not a 'person legally responsible' for the children at the time of the alleged neglect and challenged the merits of the neglect finding. The Family Court's decision was supported by evidence of the mother's inappropriate behavior, including yelling and profanities during meetings, verbal and physical threats against her older son, a positive cocaine test, and her subsequent refusal to undergo drug tests. Additionally, the children were exposed to domestic violence perpetrated against the mother by her paramour, which caused them distress. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding no merit in the respondent's contentions and substantial support in the record for the finding of neglect.

Child NeglectFamily Law AppealParental MisconductDomestic Violence ExposureDrug AbuseChild Protective ServicesParental RightsSupervised VisitsCredibility AssessmentAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Seligman

Plaintiff, an injured worker, sued her attorneys, Raymond J. Seligman and his law firm, for legal malpractice. The attorneys allegedly provided negligent advice by mistakenly informing her that she could not pursue a third-party claim for pain and suffering against the Gideon Putnam Hotel, believing she was employed by the hotel. By the time she consulted a different attorney, the statute of limitations for such a claim had expired. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to investigate her employment representation. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding questions of fact regarding the defendants' duty to investigate and their negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the attorneys owed a duty to investigate and that there was a question of fact as to whether they exercised appropriate care in performing that duty, thus precluding summary judgment for the defendants.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty to InvestigateNegligenceThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewAttorney ResponsibilityEmployment Status
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07752
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2016

Matter of Keniya G. (Avery P.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found appellant Avery P. to be a person legally responsible for the child M.W. and guilty of neglect, with derivative neglect for other children. The court determined that Avery P. acted as the functional equivalent of a parent, citing his regular involvement in the children's care and household contributions. Crucially, M.W.'s out-of-court statement regarding a sexually threatening comment from Avery P. was corroborated by his criminal history of sexual assault against minors and his classification as a high-risk sex offender. The court found sufficient evidence to support the finding of neglect.

NeglectChild ProtectionParental ResponsibilityFunctional Equivalent of a ParentSex OffenderRecidivismCorroborationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewChild Welfare
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2001

Marcano v. Litman & Litman, P.C.

This case concerns an action for legal malpractice brought by a laborer who suffered a construction site injury. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-appellant law firm, specializing in workers' compensation, committed malpractice by failing to advise him about potential third-party personal injury claims or to verify if such claims were being handled by the defendant-respondent personal injury law firm. The defendant-appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no such duty since the plaintiff had already consulted with a personal injury lawyer. However, the Supreme Court, New York County, denied this motion, a decision later unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found a material issue of fact, emphasizing the appellant's affirmative duty to ensure the plaintiff understood the limits of its representation and its alleged repeated assurances that his personal injury claims were "being taken care of."

legal malpracticeworkers' compensationpersonal injuryduty of caresummary judgmentlaw firmattorney-client relationshipprofessional responsibilitythird-party claimsappellate decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2009

In re Sasha B.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Bronx County, dated June 22, 2009, which found a respondent mother neglected her child. The determination stemmed from an incident where the mother left her sleeping 11.5-year-old child alone on a subway train. The child subsequently navigated her way back to school. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding determination of neglect, citing corroborating statements and the child's inability to get home, which indicated an imminent risk of harm. However, the appeal concerning the child's placement was dismissed as moot. A dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not establish "imminent danger" as legally defined, noting that the child safely returned to school and prior alleged incidents lacked sufficient corroboration.

Child NeglectSubway IncidentParental SupervisionImminent DangerCorroboration of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineDissenting OpinionChild Welfare
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 1996

In re Josephine O.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Greene County, which granted the petitioner's application to declare the respondent's children permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The Greene County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated the original neglect proceeding after finding the children left unsupervised in an unsanitary home with no edible food. Despite diligent efforts by DSS to reunite the family, including providing parenting classes, a parent aide, and substance abuse treatment recommendations, the respondent failed to cooperate, missing numerous appointments and failing to address her issues. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that DSS fulfilled its statutory duty and that the respondent failed to plan for her children's future, thereby supporting the termination of her parental rights.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsFamily ReunificationSubstance AbuseParenting SkillsChild WelfareGreene CountyAppellate DecisionSocial Services Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,210 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