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
Apr 27, 1994

Wilbur O. v. Christina P.

This case involves appeals from Family Court orders granting Wilbur O. sole legal custody of his children, William and Jessica O., and adjudicating them as neglected by their mother, Christina P., and stepfather, Allan P. Following their divorce, Christina P. and Allan P., active Jehovah\'s Witnesses, raised the children and began discarding items from Wilbur\'s visits, believing them to be demon-possessed. Christina P. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and experienced flashbacks of alleged satanic ritualistic abuse, eventually implicating Wilbur. The parents unilaterally terminated Wilbur\'s visitation, leading to the children\'s severe depression. The children, influenced by their parents, began recounting detailed, uncorroborated "memories" of satanic abuse by Wilbur. After intervention by the Department of Social Services (DSS), the children recanted their allegations, attributing them to suggestions from Christina P. and Allan P. A court-ordered psychological report diagnosed Christina P. with a possible psychotic disorder and described a "Folie á Deux" shared delusion with the children. The appeals court affirmed the Family Court\'s findings of neglect and the change of custody to Wilbur O., concluding that the children\'s mental and emotional health was impaired by Christina P. and Allan P.\'s conduct.

Child Custody DisputeChild NeglectParental AlienationFalse Allegations of AbuseSatanic Ritual Abuse AllegationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Shared Delusion (Folie á Deux)Family Court ActAppellate DecisionPsychological Evaluation
References
3
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02722 [238 AD3d 451]
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2025

Guayara v. H.P.S.O.N.Y., Inc.

The plaintiff, Luis Guayara, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied his motion to declare TJC LDK CLR FS & DTF, LLC (TJC) as his employer for litigation purposes. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this denial. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant, H.P.S.O.N.Y., Inc., was a party to or in privity with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) proceeding that had determined TJC to be the employer. Consequently, that WCB determination lacked collateral estoppel effect against the defendant. The decision also noted that new evidence, specifically the deposition testimony of defendant's general manager, which was submitted for the first time in reply, could not be considered in support of the plaintiff's prima facie showing.

Collateral EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesPrivityDenial of MotionMotion PracticeJudiciary LawWorkers' Compensation Law
References
3
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

F.O. ex rel. O. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs F.O. and E.O., on behalf of their minor child Brendan O., sued the New York City Department of Education under the IDEA and New York State Education Law. They sought to reverse a State Review Officer (SRO) decision that had overturned an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) decision, which ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for Brendan's private school placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. Brendan, diagnosed with Myasthenia Gravis and Autism, required special education services, and the dispute centered on the adequacy of the DOE's proposed IEP (a 12:1:4 classroom) versus the Rebecca School's program. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment regarding tuition reimbursement, finding the SRO's decision inadequately reasoned and deferring to the IHO's conclusion that the DOE's IEP was inappropriate and the Rebecca School was an appropriate unilateral placement. The court ordered the DOE to reimburse $92,100 for Brendan's tuition but denied the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief concerning a 1:1 health paraprofessional on procedural grounds.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Educational ProgramTuition ReimbursementAutism Spectrum DisorderMyasthenia GravisImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerUnilateral Private Placement
References
41
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06370 [222 AD3d 756]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2023

Matter of William O. (Duff)

August O., Jr., as guardian of William O. and administrator of his estate, moved to settle his final account, which included confirming a referee's report. The report concerned claims against and by Claudette Duff, William O.'s geriatric care manager. The Supreme Court, Richmond County, confirmed the referee's findings that Duff improperly collected $9,750 in rent and denied her claim for alleged unpaid expenses. Duff appealed this order. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the court providently exercised its discretion in directing Duff to reimburse the estate and denying her claim.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene LawFiduciary DutyRent CollectionEstate AdministrationAppellate ReviewFinal AccountReferee's ReportUnpaid ExpensesGeriatric Care Manager
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00603 [135 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2016

Matter of Nataysha O. (Manuel O.)

The Family Court, Bronx County, initially dismissed petitions alleging neglect against respondent Manuel O. for inflicting excessive corporal punishment on one child and derivatively neglecting two others. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The court found, based on a preponderance of evidence including the child's statements and a photograph, that respondent intentionally burned his nearly four-year-old daughter with a cigarette. The respondent's testimony of an accidental injury was rejected as improbable. Consequently, the Appellate Division entered findings of neglect and derivative neglect against the respondent and remanded the case to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureEvidenceCredibilityDerivative NeglectIntentional InjuryCigarette Burn
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oriska Insurance v. Power P.E.O., Inc.

Oriska Insurance Company and U.S. Management, Inc. filed a lawsuit against The Power P.E.O., Inc. and various small business clients of Power. The plaintiffs claim that Power misrepresented its authority to issue workers' compensation policies through its agreement with Oriska, violating the Lanham Act. The small business defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing they have no contacts with New York. The court, however, found that Power acted as an agent for the small business defendants in establishing contacts with New York to procure insurance, thus attributing Power's actions to them. Therefore, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, asserting personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1), and finding it comports with due process.

Personal JurisdictionLanham ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAgency LawLong-Arm StatuteDue ProcessMinimum ContactsProfessional Employer OrganizationInsurance FraudMisrepresentation
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,446 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