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

Rubackin v. Rubackin

This case addresses the appropriate standard of proof for finding a willful violation of a Family Court order of protection when incarceration is the imposed remedy. The court determined that such a finding, leading to jail time, constitutes a criminal contempt and thus requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than previously applied in some appellate decisions. While the Family Court initially used a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, the appellate court reviewed the evidence and concluded it was sufficient to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Consequently, the original order's finding was modified to reflect the correct standard, and the order was affirmed as modified. An appeal regarding the expired period of incarceration was dismissed as academic.

Family LawContempt of CourtStandard of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptFamily Court ActDue ProcessIncarcerationAppellate ReviewOrder of Protection
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pamela R. v. James N.

This case addresses the appropriate burden of proof in Family Court contempt proceedings concerning custody order violations, specifically contrasting criminal and civil contempt. The court examined whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal contempt, as established by Rubackin v Rubackin, and clear and convincing evidence for civil contempt. The father was accused of willfully violating a sole custody order by altering his daughter's prescribed medication regimen. The court found that the mother failed to prove criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence, as the father's actions were deemed justified due to his medical expertise and good faith belief regarding his daughter's well-being. Consequently, the mother's petition was dismissed.

Family CourtContempt ProceedingCustody OrderBurden of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptReasonable DoubtClear and Convincing EvidenceJudicial AuthorityParental Rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kristopher I.

This case concerns an appeal from an Ulster County Family Court order adjudicating a respondent, born in 1987, a person in need of supervision (PINS) due to chronic school absenteeism. The respondent argued that emotional disability caused the absences and that the Family Court applied an incorrect evidentiary standard, using "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as required by Family Court Act § 744 (b). The appellate court agreed with the respondent regarding the evidentiary standard error. However, after independently reviewing the record, the appellate court determined that even with the correct standard, the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the unlawfulness of the respondent's persistent absences despite documented mental health issues. Consequently, the order adjudicating the respondent a PINS was affirmed.

PINS ProceedingTruancySchool AbsenteeismEvidentiary StandardBeyond a Reasonable DoubtPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMental HealthChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. ADJ7948448
Regular
Nov 03, 1971

HENRY LOPEZ vs. WINDSOR SNF MANAGEMENT, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who, while on a work assignment, experienced a diabetic episode causing dizziness. He stopped at a nearby market to eat and subsequently slipped and fell, injuring his hip and knee. The employer argued the injury was outside the scope of employment due to a deviation and the going and coming rule. However, the WCJ found the deviation was reasonable under the personal comfort rule for a known medical condition, and the Appeals Board adopted this reasoning, denying reconsideration. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and resolved reasonable doubts in favor of the employee, consistent with precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingInjury to left hip and left kneeDiabetic episodeLow blood sugarDeviation from work assignmentGoing and coming ruleInsbexual evidence
References
1
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barnes

The appellate court reversed a murder conviction, finding the People failed to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, charged with murder for shooting a co-worker, had raised an insanity defense. Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and lacked the capacity to understand his actions. The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Consequently, the case was remitted to the trial court with directions to enter a directed verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and to issue an examination order.

Insanity defenseMurderSchizophreniaParanoid typeCriminal procedureBurden of proofSanityAppellate reviewRemittalDirected verdict
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1982

People v. Lewis

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree after the badly decomposed body of Lynn May Bailey was discovered in Cooper Lake, Ulster County. The victim's body was found bound, weighted, and encased, with drowning determined as the cause of death by a forensic expert. Defendant, who was the last person to see Bailey alive, admitted to disposing of her belongings and fleeing the state following an argument and their breakup. The conviction was based on substantial circumstantial evidence, including defendant's flight, his false statements to authorities, and his actions to conceal evidence. The jury concluded that the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, inconsistent with innocence and excluding all other reasonable hypotheses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments concerning probable cause for arrest and prosecutorial misconduct.

murdercircumstantial evidenceappealconvictiondrowningUlster Countyflightfalse statementsforensic experttoxicology
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lee

The case involves a motion to suppress a confession made by 17-year-old Steven Lee, who was arrested for multiple robberies. Prior to his interrogation, Lee's parents explicitly informed detectives they would secure a lawyer for him. Despite this, and after initial Miranda warnings, detectives proceeded with questioning Lee at the precinct while he was handcuffed. The court found that the parents' unequivocal statement constituted an effective invocation of Lee's right to counsel, requiring the police to either reiterate his rights in light of the parents' intent or wait a reasonable time for a lawyer. The court also expressed reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness and knowing waiver of Lee's Miranda rights, particularly given his age, lack of prior arrests, handcuffing, and threats made by detectives. Consequently, the motion to suppress Lee's confession for both indictments was granted.

Confession suppressionMiranda rightsParental invocation of counselJuvenile rightsCustodial interrogationVoluntariness of confessionPolice threatsRight to counsel waiver17-year-old defendantIntervening events
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Con. Ass'n

The Attorney General sought leave from the District Court to dismiss an indictment, returned in March 1959, which charged multiple defendants including associations and individuals with violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the ladies' blouse production industry. The charges involved alleged conspiracies to fix prices, allocate work, and establish exclusivity in New York and Pennsylvania. Only one defendant, Slate Belt, opposed the dismissal, arguing that the indictment's pendency had brought stability and prosperity to its members and fearing a return to prior restrictive practices if the prosecution ceased. The government, following a re-evaluation, contended that the available evidence was insufficient to prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and that proceeding would necessitate a change in legal theory. The Court, exercising its discretion, granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the reasons advanced were substantial and made in good faith, and that it would be futile to compel a prosecution in which the government had no faith.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCriminal ProcedureMotion to DismissNolle ProsequiProsecutorial DiscretionFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury IndictmentConspiracy
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,378 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