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 Female Infant K.

This case involves an application in a private placement adoption proceeding to designate a certified social worker, Mary Helen Evans, as a disinterested person to conduct the postplacement investigation as required by Domestic Relations Law § 116. Judge Edward M. Kaufmann denied the application, stating that Ms. Evans was not found by the court to be qualified for postplacement investigations, despite being statutorily qualified for preplacement investigations. The court emphasized the need for an impartial, unbiased, and independent investigator with uniform methodology, highlighting that the Family Court Probation Service is statutorily qualified by training and experience for postplacement investigations. Consequently, the Family Court Probation Service was ordered to conduct the investigation.

Adoption LawPostplacement InvestigationPreplacement InvestigationDisinterested PersonCertified Social WorkerFamily CourtProbation ServiceJudicial DiscretionChild WelfareStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. New York State Commission of Investigation

Petitioners, Suffolk County District Attorney Patrick Henry and Assistant DA Raymond G. Perini, initiated a proceeding against the New York State Commission of Investigation (S.I.C.) and its chairman, David G. Trager. They alleged the S.I.C. overstepped its jurisdiction, interfered with the DA's duties, and violated their constitutional and statutory rights during a two-year probe into the Suffolk County Police Department and DA's office. Petitioners sought various forms of relief, including declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, and pre-release judicial review of the S.I.C.'s report. The court denied motions for intervention and discovery, concluding that the S.I.C. is a purely investigative body without adjudicatory or prosecutorial powers, thus upholding its enabling act's constitutionality and denying all of the petitioners' requested relief. The court granted the respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Investigatory PowersDue Process RightsJurisdictional DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorari ReviewState Commission of InvestigationGrand Jury AuthorityPublic Official MisconductCivil Rights Law
References
18
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05129
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Ansah v. A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The underlying action was a putative class action filed by security and fire safety workers, Samuel Ansah et al., against A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc., and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs sought recovery for prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, and overtime pay for work on public construction projects. The Supreme Court had denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment as premature, citing the need for production of relevant public work contracts and conflicting affidavits. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, also rejecting defendants' unpreserved argument for arbitration, stating that nonsignatories are generally not bound by arbitration agreements.

Summary judgmentclass actionprevailing wagessupplemental benefitsovertime paypublic construction projectsarbitration agreementnonsignatoriesCPLR 3212 [f]Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05907 [164 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (AWI), a subcontractor, and Whitestone Construction Corp. (Whitestone), a general contractor, over unpaid security services for public construction projects. Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI's action, citing a contractual six-month limitations period that it claimed began in April 2012. AWI appealed the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that the limitations period was unenforceable because Whitestone had stated that payment was contingent on the resolution of a separate prevailing wage class action. Citing precedent, the Appellate Division found that Whitestone's position nullified the contractual limitations period, as it created a scenario where AWI would be forced to sue for a claim that was not yet ripe. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying Whitestone's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Contractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSubcontractor PaymentPublic Construction ProjectCondition PrecedentAccrual of Cause of ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewRipeness of ClaimIndemnity Provision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. County of Westchester

The case involves an administratrix suing the County of Westchester for alleged gross negligence in investigating child neglect reports, which she claims led to the deaths of her nephews. The plaintiff argued for a private right of action under the Social Services Law or a common-law duty for proper investigation. The court, citing *Mark G. v Sabol* and *McLean v City of New York*, ruled that there is no implied private right of action for money damages under Title 6 of Article 6 of the Social Services Law, except for the specific reporting requirement in Social Services Law § 420. The court also noted that actions by caseworkers are discretionary, thus not forming a basis for liability. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Child NeglectWrongful DeathGovernmental ImmunitySocial Services LawPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissDiscretionary ActsStatutory InterpretationNew York LawAgency Liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New Alliance Party v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Plaintiff New Alliance Party (NAP) sued the FBI, alleging that the FBI characterized NAP as a “political cult” and investigated it, thereby chilling their First Amendment rights. NAP contended the investigation, initiated in 1988 based on uncorroborated allegations, and a later inquiry in 1991, harmed the party's public image and political competitiveness. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the court converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court found NAP lacked constitutional standing, failing to demonstrate actual or threatened injury directly traceable to the FBI's actions, noting NAP members continued significant political activities. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationPolitical PartyFBI InvestigationConstitutional StandingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityFreedom of Information Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Proceedings Special Investigation 1198/82

The Bureau of Community Services, an authorized child care agency, moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney for confidential records concerning three children believed to be victims of crimes, sought in a Grand Jury investigation. The Bureau argued these records were protected by various privileges, including social worker/client, attorney/client, physician/patient, and Social Services Law § 372. The District Attorney contended that the social worker/client privilege did not apply to child victims under CPLR 4508 (subd 3). The court, citing precedent from *Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe)*, ruled that evidentiary privileges, though important, should not obstruct legitimate Grand Jury investigations into criminal activity, especially when the Grand Jury operates in secrecy. Consequently, the motion to quash the subpoena was denied in all respects. The court did order the District Attorney to photocopy the subpoenaed materials and return the originals to the agency within five working days.

SubpoenaMotion to QuashConfidentialitySocial Worker-Client PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGrand Jury InvestigationChild VictimsSocial Services LawCPLR
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 914 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