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. 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. 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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1992

Matter of P.

The appellant, Rashmi P., appealed a Family Court's finding that he sexually abused his daughter, Parul. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of disposition, dismissing the appeal from the superseded October 12, 1990 order. The court found that the Family Court's determination of abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This was based on consistent out-of-court statements made by the child to a social worker and a caseworker, corroborated by the testimony of a psychologist. The psychologist, an expert in child sexual abuse, stated that the child's allegations and behavior were consistent with the inter-familial, child sex-abuse syndrome. The appellant did not testify or present any evidence.

sexual abusechild abusefamily courtappellate reviewcorroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild sex-abuse syndromepreponderance of evidenceparental rights
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04540 [230 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2024

Chavarria v. Bruce Nagel & Partners Architects, P.C.

Jose Chavarria, an employee, sustained personal injuries on a renovation project and initiated an action against Bruce Nagel & Partners Architects, P.C. (Nagel, P.C.) and David L. Wasserman and Ellen F. Wasserman (the Wassermans). Nagel, P.C. had a contract with the Wassermans for architectural services, which included a provision requiring the Wassermans to ensure Nagel, P.C. was an additional insured on the general contractor's liability policy, regardless of whether construction administration services were regular or ad hoc. Despite an addendum modifying the frequency of services, the insurance requirement remained. Following Chavarria's injury, Nagel, P.C. moved for summary judgment to dismiss Chavarria's complaint and on its cross-claim for breach of contract against the Wassermans. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Nagel, P.C.'s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against Nagel, P.C. and finding the Wassermans liable for breach of contract.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractCross-ClaimsAppellate ReviewConstruction Administration ServicesGeneral Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured ClauseLabor LawSafe WorkplaceContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tunison v. P. C. Richards & Son

This case involves an appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning workers' compensation death benefits. The decedent, an employee of Outlaw Trucking Company, was fatally injured while delivering merchandise for P. C. Richards & Son. The Board found that the decedent was a special employee of P. C. Richards & Son and that his death arose out of and in the course of this special employment, making P. C. Richards & Son liable for death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of a special employment relationship due to P. C. Richards & Son's control over the decedent's work, and that the death occurred in the course of employment as he was returning truck keys.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewControl TestCourse of EmploymentInsurance CarrierTrucking IndustryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 915 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