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 S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robin G.

The OCFS filed a permanency hearing petition for Robin G., a juvenile delinquent, seeking a finding of reasonable efforts for her safe return home and approval of a permanency plan. Robin, placed with Graham-Windham, exhibited declining behavior, academic struggles, and mental health issues, leading to psychiatric hospitalization. Her mother's inconsistent willingness and temporary unavailability complicated reunification efforts. The court granted OCFS's petition to extend Robin's placement but denied the finding of reasonable efforts by OCFS and Graham-Windham, citing unmet educational and psychological needs, lack of parental engagement, and inadequate planning for transition, while approving the broader permanency plan.

Juvenile DelinquencyPermanency HearingFoster CareChild WelfareFamily Court ActOffice of Children and Family ServicesGraham-WindhamExtension of PlacementReasonable EffortsEducational Needs
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Telsa Z.

The respondent, mother of two daughters, appealed a Family Court decision that denied her visitation and continued the children's placement with the petitioner. The children were placed in petitioner's care due to the father's sexual abuse of the older child and the mother's subsequent finding of neglect for failing to protect them. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to make reasonable reunification efforts by denying visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the denial of visitation was based on compelling reasons, specifically the older child's severe mental health issues and recommendations from her social worker and psychiatrist. The court also found that the petitioner had made reasonable efforts toward reunification, which the respondent largely failed to engage with.

Child NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild VisitationFamily ReunificationChild Abuse AllegationsMental Health of ChildPermanency HearingAppellate ReviewFailure to ProtectReasonable Efforts
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03363 [184 AD3d 1198]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2020

Green v. Iacovangelo

Plaintiffs commenced an action seeking damages based on allegations that defendants failed to take reasonable efforts to inform them, as next of kin, of the death of their relative, interfering with their right of sepulcher. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order which denied the hospital defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether their efforts to locate next of kin were reasonable and sufficient, particularly their failure to contact a known homeless shelter. The court also affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the County defendants, dismissing the complaint against the Public Administrator due to governmental function immunity. The court concluded that the Public Administrator was engaged in a governmental function and did not owe a special duty to the plaintiffs.

Right of SepulcherNext of KinSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityPublic AdministratorHospital NegligenceReasonable EffortsCausationAppellate DivisionMonroe County
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Crawford

The claimant, along with her husband, owned E & F Fuel Oil Service, Inc., a fuel oil and repair business. When her husband became disabled, the claimant, possessing limited office skills, struggled to find a replacement mechanic due to the disparity between her business's pay rates and union wages. Faced with declining profitability, the couple sold the business, after which the claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. Although an Administrative Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, deeming the business closure non-compelling and the claimant's job-seeking efforts insufficient. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding ample evidence of compelling reasons for the business closure due to its declining state and the critical loss of the husband's expertise, and that the claimant's efforts to find a replacement were reasonable, thereby remitting the case for further proceedings.

Voluntary QuittingGood CauseUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationBusiness ClosureDeclining BusinessCompelling ReasonsEfforts to MitigateUnemployment Insurance AppealAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. 13.10 Acres of Land in County of Putnam

This case involves a condemnation action brought by the United States against Christina Mattin to acquire 13.1 acres of her land in Putnam County for a buffer zone around the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Mattin moved for summary judgment, arguing a "substantial relocation" of the trail requiring an act of Congress, and that the acquisition was not "reasonably necessary" and made arbitrarily. The Court denied Mattin's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, ruling that the trail relocation was not substantial based on the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the National Trails System Act, and that the acquisition was necessary for trail protection and not arbitrary or capricious, and that reasonable efforts for acquisition were made.

CondemnationSummary JudgmentNational Trails System ActAppalachian TrailLand AcquisitionStatutory InterpretationBuffer ZoneAdministrative DeferenceProperty RightsFederal Land
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galarza v. American Home Assurance Co.

Lorri Galarza sued her employer, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), alleging workplace sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Executive Law. Galarza claimed a co-worker, Marc Kaplan, sexually harassed her, and that she was fired after reporting the harassment to management. AHAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a reasonable complaint procedure and that Galarza's termination was due to poor job performance and insubordination, not retaliation. The court found that AHAC provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and made diligent efforts to investigate. Furthermore, the court concluded that Galarza failed to demonstrate that AHAC's stated reasons for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, AHAC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Galarza's claims.

sexual harassmentretaliatory dischargeTitle VIIsummary judgmenthostile work environmentemployee conductperformance deficienciesdiscrimination claimsfederal civil procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander A. v. Novello

Plaintiffs, children with psychiatric disabilities, filed a class action lawsuit against the Commissioners of the New York State Department of Health (DOH) and the Office of Mental Health (OMH). They alleged violations of the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming a failure to provide timely placement in Residential Treatment Facilities (RTFs). The plaintiffs sought class certification and partial summary judgment. The court granted class certification for "All New York State children with psychiatric disabilities who have been or will be found by defendants to be appropriate for placement in a Residential Treatment Facility and who have not been or will not be provided with such placement with reasonable promptness." However, the court denied the motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the definition of "reasonable promptness" in this context requires further inquiry, especially considering the complexities of matching children with appropriate RTFs and the state's ongoing efforts to develop alternative community-based services. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for further settlement discussions and recommendations regarding the issue of "reasonable promptness" and the defendants' justifications for not increasing RTF bed capacity.

Mental health servicesChildren's healthMedicaid ActAmericans with Disabilities ActClass action lawsuitInjunctive reliefSummary judgmentResidential treatment facilitiesWaiting listsState government
References
39
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
Nov 08, 1996

Sim v. Sim

This case is an appeal concerning the propriety of counsel fees awarded to the defendant in a matrimonial action. The plaintiff challenged the Supreme Court's award, arguing a lack of a full hearing and the court's failure to state its reasoning. However, an in-court stipulation made by the plaintiff's counsel waived these arguments, agreeing to a determination based on existing evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the award, citing the reasonableness of defendant's counsel fees and the plaintiff's "demonstrated efforts to obscure his true financial condition." The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to disclose significant workers' compensation and Social Security payments, which contributed to the affirmation of the counsel fee award.

Matrimonial ActionCounsel FeesAppealStipulationFinancial DisclosureWorkers' CompensationSocial SecurityJudicial DiscretionWaiver of RightsAppellate Division
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,677 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