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

Sondra S. v. Jay O.

This case addresses whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a paternity proceeding against a putative father who died prior to the commencement of the proceeding. The petitioner initiated the paternity action to establish that the deceased respondent is the father of her child, born out of wedlock. The court examined prior judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and the use of HLA blood tests in paternity cases. It concluded that recent legislative changes and case law imply that such actions should survive the putative father's death. The court ultimately found sufficient authority to permit the filing of the paternity petition and directed the petitioner to serve the deceased father's parents as respondents to ensure an adversarial proceeding.

Paternity JurisdictionPosthumous PaternityChild Support ObligationsEstate InheritanceBlood Test Evidence (HLA)Family Court AuthorityStatutory InterpretationSurvival of ActionDue ProcessLegal Guardianship (for child)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Heaven A. A. (Tyrone W.--Stephanie A.)

The case addresses whether a Family Court can terminate a putative father's parental rights for abandonment without first establishing paternity. SCO Family of Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Stephanie A. and putative father Tyrone W. for abandonment of their child, Heaven. Tyrone W. disputed paternity and requested a DNA test, which the Family Court denied, proceeding to find abandonment. The appellate court reversed, holding that a Family Court must make a threshold factual determination of paternity, through DNA testing if requested, before ruling on abandonment to terminate parental rights. The court emphasized the potential negative stigma of an abandonment finding on an individual whose paternity has not been established.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentPaternity DisputeDNA TestingFamily LawAdoption ConsentPutative Father RegistrySocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Norden

This case addresses whether an admission of paternity made to a social worker by a reputed father, in the presence of the mother, is a privileged communication under CPLR 4508. The court applied four conditions for establishing privilege and determined that the benefit of disclosing relevant paternity evidence outweighs any potential injury to the social worker-client relationship, as a correct paternity determination is vital for the child, mother, and community. Furthermore, drawing an analogy to attorney-client privilege, the court held that statements made to a social worker when two parties consult on a matter of common interest are not confidential in a subsequent action between them. Consequently, the court denied the motion to exclude the social worker's testimony, deeming the statements admissible in this civil filiation proceeding.

PaternitySocial Worker PrivilegeCPLR 4508ConfidentialityFamily Court ActEvidence AdmissibilityChild SupportIllegitimate ChildFiliation ProceedingWigmore Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anton W. v. Nadine V.

This case concerns a paternity proceeding initiated by the petitioner father for the child Nia, born January 18, 1992. Despite blood tests excluding him as the biological father, the petitioner sought an order of filiation based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The respondent mother had consistently represented the petitioner as the child's father to family, hospital staff, and the CWA caseworker, accepting his financial and emotional support and allowing a strong father-child bond to develop. The court found the respondent's later denial of paternity incredible and applied equitable estoppel, concluding it was in the child's best interests to maintain the established father-child relationship. Consequently, an order of filiation was granted to the petitioner, adjudicating him as the child's father.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelOrder of FiliationBest Interests of the ChildFather-Child RelationshipBlood Test ExclusionChild Protective ProceedingParental RightsFamily LawChild Support
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of George

Lois E. George appealed by writ of error an order declaring Kandice Lee George the biological child of Myron D. George, Lois's deceased husband. Lois, the sole beneficiary of workers' compensation death benefits, alleged she did not participate in the paternity action and found errors in the record. The trial court's order was based on a petition from Belinda Gail Gammons, the child's mother, alleging Myron was the father. The appellate court concluded that the Texas Family Code does not permit a paternity suit after the putative father's death, distinguishing it from probate code provisions for heirship determination. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, vacated the order, and dismissed the cause.

Paternity actionWrit of errorPosthumous paternitySurvival of actionFamily CodeProbate CodeWorkers' Compensation death benefitsIntestate successionParent-child relationshipAd litem attorney
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Heart Share Human Services

This case involves a petition filed by Heart Share Human Services of New York to terminate the parental rights of Brunilda E., the respondent mother, and Chiedus E., the putative father, to their child, Charle E., alleging permanent neglect and abandonment. Initially, the presumptive father was also a respondent, but the petition against him was withdrawn. The respondent mother conceded permanent neglect. The primary issues before the court were whether Chiedus E. qualified as a "consent father" and if the allegations of permanent neglect or abandonment against him were established. The court found Chiedus E. to be a credible witness, establishing his status as a "consent father" due to his prompt efforts to assert paternity and parental responsibility once aware of the possibility, despite the respondent mother's initial misrepresentations and the petitioning agency's lack of diligent efforts. Consequently, the court found that the petitioning agency failed to prove permanent neglect or abandonment against Chiedus E., leading to the dismissal of the petition against him, while proceedings for a dispositional hearing continued for the respondent mother.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectAbandonmentPutative Father's RightsConsent FatherDiligent EffortsBiological PaternityChild AdoptionFamily LawChild Welfare
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 176 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