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 Evan Y.

The Family Court of Tioga County found a child, born in 1994, to be abused by his father (respondent) based on the child's out-of-court statements of being repeatedly fondled and exhibited troubling behaviors such as sexual acting out, nightmares, bed-wetting, and suicidal tendencies. Petitioner initiated this child abuse proceeding, and the respondent, who had a prior neglect adjudication, chose not to testify at the fact-finding hearing. Expert witnesses, clinical social workers Mary Bado and Sarah Walsh, provided corroborating testimony that the child's behaviors were consistent with sexual abuse. Family Court credited this expert testimony and found sufficient corroboration for the child's statements. The respondent appealed the finding of sexual abuse, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, noting the permissible inference against the non-testifying respondent and the ample corroborative evidence from the expert witnesses.

child abusesexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10corroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild witnessesappellate reviewparental rightssexual acting out
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

The petitioner sought to renew and reconsider a prior motion to stay arbitration of a no-fault insurance claim. The court had previously determined that threshold issues concerning conditions precedent for no-fault recovery fall under arbitration, not judicial review, citing broad arbitration provisions in the Insurance Law. Petitioner contended non-compliance with notice requirements and an unconstitutional deprivation of contractual and property rights. The court upheld its original decision, finding the arbitration provisions reasonable and consistent with the no-fault law's goal of reducing court congestion, with due process rights protected by CPLR 7511. The motion to renew and reconsider was granted, but the denial of the motion to stay arbitration was adhered to.

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Alaire

This case concerns an appeal of a criminal conviction where the defendant, a 16-year-old with schizophrenia, challenged the admissibility of statements made during police interrogation. The appellate court found that initial incriminating statements made prior to Miranda warnings should be suppressed because the defendant was in custodial interrogation, and his youth and mental state contributed to a coercive environment. However, a subsequent spontaneous statement made to his social worker, overheard by police after Miranda warnings, was deemed admissible as it was not coerced by police action. The judgment was partially reversed, with pre-Miranda statements suppressed and a new trial ordered, while the denial of suppression for the spontaneous statement was affirmed.

Miranda WarningsCustodial InterrogationSuppression of StatementsJuvenile RightsMentally Impaired DefendantVoluntary StatementsSocial Worker PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawNew TrialDue Process
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2002

People v. Greene

The defendant was convicted of rape, incest, sodomy, sexual abuse, and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree against his daughter. On appeal, the defendant argued that statements made to a CPS caseworker were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and that the County Court failed to provide cautionary instructions for prior bad acts evidence. The appellate court determined the CPS caseworker acted as an agent of the police, making the statements inadmissible on direct examination but permissible for impeachment after the defendant's denial. However, the court found that the trial court's failure to provide limiting instructions regarding the prior bad acts evidence and defense counsel's omissions seriously compromised the defendant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial.

Criminal LawSexual AssaultChild AbuseRight to CounselPrior Bad ActsImpeachment EvidenceLimiting InstructionsFair TrialAgency RelationshipCPS Caseworker
References
27
Case No. G107 435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2023

Matter of Marku v. ABM Industries

This case concerns the claim of Denise Perry under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) previously found that the employer, Adventist Home Care, established a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by the claimant for willfully making false statements to obtain benefits. Consequently, the WCLJ disallowed indemnity benefits and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. A Board Panel decision filed on February 17, 2022, affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The claimant subsequently filed an application for reconsideration on March 18, 2022, which the Board Panel reviewed. After considering the claimant’s arguments, the Board Panel determined that the application did not raise new issues or present new material evidence, nor did it demonstrate an erroneous statement of material fact or law in the prior decision. Therefore, the Board Panel, by a majority vote, affirmed its prior decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationIndemnity Benefits DisallowanceWCL § 114-a PenaltyApplication for Reconsideration DeniedBoard Panel AffirmationWillful MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionEmployer Established Violation
References
0
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
Dec 23, 1987

People v. Wilens

The defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree sodomy and incest from Dutchess County. The appeal concerned the admissibility of a social worker's testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by the five-year-old victim. The defendant argued that the social worker's testimony improperly bolstered the victim's repudiated Grand Jury testimony, which the defense implied was fabricated under the Assistant District Attorney's influence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the social worker's testimony was properly admitted to rehabilitate the victim's testimony against claims of recent fabrication.

sodomyincestchild victimcross-examinationprior consistent statementsrecent fabricationrehabilitation of witnessappellate reviewadmissibility of evidencewitness testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arianna M.

The respondent father appealed from an order of fact-finding and disposition that determined he sexually abused and neglected two of his children and derivatively neglected another child. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order, finding that the lower court's findings of abuse and neglect were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Although the court erred in admitting a social worker's report containing prior consistent statements, this error was deemed harmless as the court's decision did not rely on the report. The appellate court accorded great weight to the Family Court's determinations, including its assessment of credibility.

Child abuseChild neglectFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate decisionHarmless errorCredibility assessmentSocial worker reportSexual abuse assessmentParental rightsEvidence preponderance
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,408 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