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. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00482 [179 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C.

This case concerns an appeal by Richard C. against an order of protection issued in favor of his mother, Maxine B., by the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was based on a finding that Richard C. committed menacing in the third degree. Richard C. argued that Maxine B. had stated she did not want the order, but the Appellate Division noted that other evidence, including sworn testimony from a social worker and counsel's representations made outside Richard C.'s presence, indicated Maxine B.'s need for protection. The court affirmed the finding that Richard C. intentionally placed Maxine B. in fear of physical injury, resulting in a black eye, and upheld the Family Court's credibility assessments. Other arguments regarding evidence admission, right to counsel, and the social worker's authority were dismissed as unpreserved or without specific prejudice. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of protection.

Order of ProtectionMenacing Third DegreeFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentEvidence AdmissibilityRight to CounselFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2015-1094 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. against V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., an assignee, concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered between October 2009 and February 2010. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had properly mailed denial of claim forms and established that the amounts sought by the plaintiff exceeded the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the relevant parts of the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFee Schedule DefenseDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsAssignee RightsCivil Court Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2012

V.E.C. Corp. v. Hilliard

This case involves V.E.C. Corp. of Delaware (VEC), an aircraft leasing business, suing Ira and Bridget Hilliard, New Light Church, Putnam County National Bank, Dean Ryder, and Nancy Molloy. VEC alleged that Putnam breached loan agreements and committed fraud, while the Hilliard Defendants breached a Fee Agreement. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims. It found VEC's contract claims against Putnam time-barred under New York law, its fraud claims legally insufficient due to lack of direct reliance, and its breach of contract claims against the Hilliard Defendants invalid as the Fee Agreement was assignable to Putnam.

Motion to DismissBreach of ContractFraudulent ConcealmentStatute of LimitationsAircraft LeasingSecured TransactionsAssignment of RightsNew York LawNew Jersey LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.B.S., Inc. v. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industry

The plaintiff, C. B. S., Inc., filed a motion for a temporary injunction to prevent arbitration demanded by Local 644, arguing that no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and that the terminations at issue were non-arbitrable layoffs. The defendant, Local 644, cross-moved to compel arbitration concerning the "arbitrary and capricious discharges" of three union members. The court found that Local 644 was indeed a signatory to and covered by the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that whether the terminations constituted layoffs or arbitrary discharges was a matter to be decided by an arbitrator, as the contract did not unambiguously exclude layoffs from the arbitration clause. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a stay of arbitration and granted Local 644's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLayoffsDischargesCollective Bargaining AgreementUnionEmployerTemporary InjunctionMotion to Compel ArbitrationArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B. C. Manufacturing Co. v. Reiff

The case concerns an injunction sought by B. C. Manufacturing Co. Inc., a nonunion dress contractor, against Local 143 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its manager, Louis Reiff, to stop picketing of its Mount Vernon, N.Y., factory. The picketing began after a general strike in March 1958, initially seeking a union agreement and later urging employees to join the union. The court found evidence of abusive and disorderly conduct during the picketing, including massing, blocking ingress/egress, pushing, and verbal abuse. However, the court denied a general injunction against all peaceful picketing, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption under the Taft-Hartley Act, as the plaintiff's interstate commerce activities fall under NLRB's exclusive purview. Instead, a limited injunction was granted, restricting the number of pickets, prohibiting interference with employees, and forbidding abusive language.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Interstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticeUnionizationStranger PicketingCoercion
References
27
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07297
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Teodoro v. C.W. Brown, Inc.

The plaintiff, Silvino Teodoro, an employee of Westchester County Electric, Inc., suffered an electric shock in August 2013 while replacing a light ballast. He brought an action against C.W. Brown, Inc., Westpark I, LLC, Nine West Group, Inc., and PepsiCo, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied the plaintiff's motions. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decisions, ruling that the plaintiff's work constituted routine maintenance, which is not covered by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found that the defendants did not exercise supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 200.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceSpoliation of EvidencePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyElectric ShockGeneral ContractorSubcontractor Liability
References
22
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04683
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2018

Matter of K.G. v. C.H.

This case involves K.G., the ex-partner of C.H., seeking parental standing for custody and visitation of A., C.H.'s adopted child. K.G.'s claim is based on a 2007 agreement with C.H. to adopt and raise a child together, and alternatively, on equitable estoppel principles as defined by _Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C._ The Supreme Court denied K.G. standing, finding the 2007 agreement terminated when the romantic relationship ended. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding regarding the termination of the preadoption agreement but remanded the case for further proceedings on the equitable estoppel claim, noting the incomplete record and the necessity of hearing the child's voice.

Parental StandingEquitable EstoppelAdoption AgreementSame-Sex CouplesChild CustodyVisitation RightsDomestic Relations LawPreadoption AgreementAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 21,739 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