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

Denise AA. v. David AA.

This case is an appeal from a Family Court order granting the petitioner primary physical custody of two children, Rebecca and Chelsea, while maintaining joint legal custody. The respondent, appealing pro se after an adjournment request was denied, argued that the Family Court abused its discretion in the custody award and in denying the adjournment. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the adjournment given the respondent's ample time to secure counsel. The court also found the custody award to the petitioner to be in the children's best interest, despite concerns about the petitioner's judgment regarding her older daughter's sexual activity and cohabitation plans. The decision emphasized the deference given to Family Court's factual findings and the desirability of keeping siblings together.

child custodyphysical custodyjoint legal custodyvisitation rightsFamily Court Act Article 6pro se representationadjournment denialbest interest of the childparental judgmentappellate review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Kemp v. Kemp

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County concerning the modification of a prior custody order for two sons. The parties, who divorced in 1999, initially had a separation agreement granting joint legal custody with the respondent having primary physical custody. However, due to the respondent's subsequent criminal convictions, probation violation, and incarceration in January 2002, the petitioner gained actual physical custody of the children. The Family Court subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody to the petitioner, citing several factors including the respondent's incarceration, lack of credibility, failure to address self-destructive behavior, and the stable home environment provided by the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding it to be based on a sound and substantial record, and rejected the respondent's contentions regarding joint custody and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Custody ModificationFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildParental FitnessChange in CircumstancesIncarcerationMental Health EvaluationCredibility AssessmentJoint CustodySole Custody
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norwood v. Capone

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Otsego County Family Court which modified a prior custody order. The petitioner and respondent, divorced parents of two sons with special needs, Christopher and Anthony, were initially granted joint custody with physical custody to the respondent. The petitioner sought to modify this arrangement due to concerns about the respondent's care for the children, particularly regarding Anthony's behavioral issues and alleged physical violence by the respondent. A family offense petition was also filed. The Family Court transferred physical custody to the petitioner and allowed the children to relocate to Kentucky, while maintaining joint custody. The family offense petition was dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the change in circumstances and the children's best interests supported the modification, particularly for Anthony, as Christopher had aged out of Family Court jurisdiction. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's assessment of parental fitness and the decision to allow relocation.

Custody ModificationFamily OffenseChild CustodySpecial Needs ChildrenRelocationParental FitnessBest Interests of the ChildDomestic ViolenceTemporary Order of ProtectionFamily Court Appeal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. White

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order granting primary physical custody of the parties' two children to the father. The parents, previously married, had a daughter (born 1999) and a son (born 2002). The mother sought treatment for alcohol and prescription drug abuse in Tennessee. During her treatment, the father moved with the children to Albany, New York, for an employment opportunity. After treatment, the parents could not agree on residency, leading the father to petition for custody, which the mother cross-petitioned. Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to the father, establishing a parenting schedule for the mother. The mother appealed this decision, arguing the Family Court did not properly weigh certain testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision to award primary physical custody to the father was in the children's best interests, given the stability he provided as the primary caretaker, his active involvement in their academic and medical care, and their thriving in his environment.

Custody DisputesChild Best InterestsParental FitnessSubstance Abuse TreatmentRelocation of ChildrenAppellate Review of Family CourtPrimary Physical CustodyJoint Legal CustodyParenting ScheduleChild Stability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Von Dwingelo v. Dwingelo

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County, which granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order. The parties, married in 1991, had a daughter, Crystal, born in 1992, and initially shared joint custody with the respondent having physical custody. In 1998, the petitioner sought physical custody, and the Family Court ruled in his favor, prompting the respondent's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the modification, citing substantial changes in circumstances over four years that warranted a change to ensure Crystal's best interests. The respondent's unstable lifestyle, including frequent moves, a welfare fraud conviction, and disregard for visitation, contrasted with the petitioner's established stability and efforts to maintain a relationship with his daughter.

custody modificationchild custodybest interest of the childparental fitnessfamily courtvisitation rightsappellate reviewparental stabilityresidential changeswelfare fraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2006

Leo v. Leo

The Family Court of Albany Court granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order, awarding him primary physical custody of his daughter. This decision followed two instances where the mother, who suffers from bipolar disorder, experienced severe episodes requiring hospitalization, deeply traumatizing the child. The father had initially obtained temporary custody and later sought permanent modification. The mother appealed, citing procedural unfairness and insufficient evidence to support the custody change. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that there was a substantial change in circumstances and that placing primary physical custody with the father served the child's best interests.

Custody ModificationBipolar DisorderChild TraumaParental FitnessBest Interest of ChildFamily Court AppealMental HealthAppellate ReviewChange in CircumstancesPhysical Custody
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2013

Matter of Lodge v. Lodge

The father and mother, divorced parents, initially had joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother. Due to the mother's work schedule, the child spent considerable time with the father. The mother subsequently moved to Brooklyn and took the child, prompting the father to seek full custody, while the mother cross-petitioned for permission to relocate. Family Court awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father and specified visitation for the mother. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, concluding that the mother failed to prove that the proposed relocation was in the child's best interest and that the father demonstrated a superior ability to provide a stable environment.

CustodyRelocationBest Interest of ChildParental FitnessJoint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitationFamily Court AppealUlster CountyFinancial Stability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oddy v. Oddy

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County that modified a prior joint custody order, granting the petitioner (mother) sole physical custody of the child and specifying visitation for the respondent (father). The respondent appealed, arguing that the Family Court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a showing of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division found sufficient changed circumstances, citing a significant breakdown in communication between the father and the child, which negatively impacted his ability to meet her emotional needs, and the child's consistent strong desire to reside with her mother. The court considered the opinions of the child's social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both of whom supported the change in physical custody to enhance the child's emotional development. Consequently, the Family Court's order affirming the modification of the custody arrangement was affirmed.

Custody ModificationChild's Best InterestFamily Law AppealParental RightsPhysical CustodyJoint CustodyChanged CircumstancesChild PreferenceCommunication BreakdownMental Health Evaluation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spraker v. Watts

The case involves an appeal by the mother from a Family Court order, entered August 12, 2005, which granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order. The father sought physical custody, alleging the mother's unstable living conditions, frequent moves, and inadequate care for their 13-year-old son, who has ADHD and a learning disability. The Family Court awarded physical custody to the father, finding the mother's lifestyle detrimental and the father's disciplinary approach more effective, while also imposing conditions on the father regarding alcohol consumption. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Family Court's determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, upholding the modification based on a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests.

Custody disputeparental responsibilitieschild welfarejudicial reviewfamily lawappellate decisionspecial needs childparental alcohol userelocation issueshome environment stability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Tomeo

The mother initiated proceedings to modify a 2004 Pennsylvania custody order, seeking primary physical custody of her daughter. The Family Court granted the mother's petition and dismissed the father's cross-petition, awarding primary physical custody to the mother, which the father then appealed. The appellate court reviewed whether a change in circumstances warranted modification and if relocation with the mother to North Carolina was in the child's best interests. The court found a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's decision, citing issues with the father's care and the mother's stable home environment. It also concluded that the father was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The Family Court's order was affirmed.

CustodyParental RelocationChild's Best InterestChange in CircumstancesFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessEffective Assistance of CounselVisitation RightsNew York Family Court
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,674 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