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 Peter F.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, which terminated respondent's parental rights over his son, Peter F., on the grounds of abandonment pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The respondent, Peter F.'s father, had a history of sexual abuse and neglect towards Peter's older sister, leading to supervised visitation with Peter and eventually Peter's placement in foster care. The petitioner, a social services agency, initiated proceedings after alleging respondent failed to plan for Peter's return, visit the child, or keep the agency informed of his whereabouts. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment during the six months prior to the petition's filing, as respondent made no attempts to contact the petitioner, and that he was not discouraged from doing so. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, rejecting respondent's argument that petitioner bore the burden to prove lack of good cause for non-contact. The court reiterated that once abandonment is proven by the petitioner, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate an inability to maintain contact or being prevented/discouraged from doing so, a burden the respondent failed to meet despite various claims of calling the caseworker, address changes, and a hernia operation. The Appellate Division found the Family Court's credibility determinations were well-supported by the record.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewFamily Court JurisdictionUlster CountyFoster CareChild WelfareBurden of ProofCredibility Determinations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union-Endicott Central School District v. Peters

Joanne Peters, a teacher, was denied retiree health insurance benefits by the Union-Endicott Central School District after allegations of theft. The District and its Board of Education commenced action No. 1 against Peters. Peters and the Endicott Teachers' Association (ETA) grieved the denial and compelled arbitration. An arbitrator found the District violated the CBA and that the "faithless servant doctrine" was inapplicable. The District and Board sought to amend their complaint to invoke the doctrine and recover damages, and to vacate the arbitration award. Supreme Court denied the amendments and refused to vacate the award. The appellate court affirmed the denial to vacate the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator resolved the issue of the faithless servant doctrine. The court also upheld the denial to amend the complaint, citing collateral estoppel, and modified the Supreme Court order to explicitly confirm the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementFaithless Servant DoctrineRetiree Health Insurance BenefitsCollateral EstoppelMotion to Amend ComplaintVacatur of Arbitration AwardEmployee MisconductSchool District DisputeTeacher Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF PETERS v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Petitioner Peters initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the New York City Housing Authority's resolution, enacted pursuant to the Gwinn Amendment, which mandated public housing tenants certify non-membership in organizations deemed subversive by the Attorney General. Peters contended the resolution violated federal constitutional rights and was arbitrary, seeking its annulment and an injunction against enforcement. After a lower court annulled the resolution and the Appellate Division reversed, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to Special Term. The Court avoided ruling on constitutional questions, asserting they should not be decided prematurely, and identified two non-constitutional grounds for potential disposition. These grounds included determining if the Gwinn Amendment applied to the specific housing project and if the Authority exceeded its statutory powers by expanding the scope of proscribed organizations beyond those explicitly designated as 'subversive' by the Attorney General.

Gwinn AmendmentSubversive OrganizationsHousing AuthorityTenant RightsConstitutional LawDue ProcessExecutive Order 9835Loyalty Review BoardStatutory InterpretationRemand
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Peter

This case addresses whether a physician owes a duty of care which extends to a patient's spouse who contracts tuberculosis due to the physician's alleged negligent failure to properly diagnose the disease in the patient. The plaintiffs, John and Joan Ellis, sued Dr. Sebastian A. Peter for medical malpractice. The wife, Joan Ellis, alleged negligence for failure to warn her about her husband's infectious condition. The court held that New York State law does not impose a statutory or common-law duty upon a physician for the benefit of those who may contract such a disease from the patient, as a physician's duty is ordinarily owed to the patient, not the community at large. Therefore, the order was reversed, the plaintiffs' motion to strike defenses was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the wife's second and fourth causes of action was granted.

medical malpracticephysician's duty of carenegligencecommunicable diseasetuberculosisforeseeabilitystatutory dutycommon lawpatient spousezone of risk
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berry v. St. Peter's Hospital

Cornelius M. Berry suffered severe brain damage during a medical procedure at St. Peter’s Hospital in 1983, leading to a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by his wife, as conservator. Health insurers, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Lucent Technologies, Inc., who paid significant medical expenses, sought to intervene in the suit after a confidential settlement was reached for non-medical damages. Supreme Court granted their motion for permissive intervention, giving them veto power over future settlements. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the permissive intervention an abuse of discretion due to potential prejudice to the plaintiff, undue delay, and a conflict of interest with the insureds, especially considering the "made whole" doctrine. The court held that insurers' subrogation rights defer to their primary obligations to their insureds and denied the motions for permissive intervention.

Medical malpracticeInterventionSubrogation rightsHealth insurance disputesAppellate DivisionAbuse of discretionInsurer-insured relationship"Made whole" doctrineCPLR 1013CPLR 1012
References
13
Case No. 533663
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Giglia

Claimant Peter Giglia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making misrepresentations on work activity reports. Giglia failed to disclose side jobs he performed while receiving benefits between September 7, 2018, and May 16, 2019. The Board assessed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including forfeiture of benefits and permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a violation and the discretionary penalty but modified the mandatory penalty, specifying that benefits should be rescinded only from September 7, 2018, to April 29, 2019, rather than the entire period of lost wages.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltiesAppellate DivisionFalse StatementWork Activity ReportsForfeitureDisqualification
References
11
Case No. CV-24-0787
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Hurley

Peter Hurley, a special education teacher, established a workers' compensation claim for asthma in 2018. After working remotely during the pandemic, his employer, Lawrence School District, required his return to in-person teaching. Due to his medical condition, he was assigned to an air-conditioned classroom and later a library, where construction dust and mold were reportedly not an issue. Hurley did not report to the library assignment, asserting his doctors advised against exposure to dust and mold. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a finding that Hurley's refusal was an unreasonable refusal of a job offer and a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, as his medical contentions were not sufficiently supported. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketAsthma ExacerbationJob RefusalMedical Evidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewEmployer ReassignmentCOVID-19 ImpactSpecial Education TeacherWorkplace Allergens
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02518
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2022

Peters v. Structure Tone, Inc.

Plaintiff Nedroy Peters, a carpenter, suffered an eye injury from falling concrete debris while working on a construction site managed by Structure Tone, Inc. and owned by MI NY Clock Tower, LLC. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability, but the Appellate Division, First Department, modified this. The Appellate Division denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion, finding unresolved issues of fact concerning the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation differential and debris force, and for Labor Law § 241 (6) regarding normal exposure to falling objects and the reasonableness of protective coverings. Therefore, the case will proceed further to resolve these factual disputes.

Construction AccidentFalling DebrisLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary JudgmentElevation DifferentialEye InjuryRetinal DetachmentWorker Safety
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 220 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