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

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B.T. v. D.M.

The petitioner, B.T., sought to extend an order of protection against her husband, respondent D.M., and alleged a violation of a previous order. D.M. counter-petitioned for visitation with their child. The court denied B.T.'s violation petition, finding insufficient evidence that D.M. orchestrated his older son's actions. However, B.T.'s request to extend the order of protection was granted for two additional years, citing D.M.'s history of severe domestic violence against B.T. (witnessed by the child) and continued harassment including stalking and threatening phone calls even after the initial order. D.M.'s petition for visitation was denied based on the child's best interests; a forensic evaluator reported the child suffered trauma from witnessing the violence and opposed visitation, noting forcing visits could worsen the child's high anxiety and fearfulness. The court found D.M.'s testimony not credible and supported the forensic evaluator's assessment.

Domestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionChild VisitationChild CustodyForensic PsychologyChild TraumaParental BehaviorBest Interests of the ChildHarassmentStalking
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04274
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2021

Matter of J.D. (S.A.--M.A.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed orders of disposition from the Bronx County Family Court, which found a respondent neglected and abused J.D. and derivatively neglected and abused adoptive children M.A. and E.A. The court based its decision on J.D.'s detailed out-of-court statements, corroborated by an older sibling's testimony and explicit photographs. The Family Court's decision to quash a subpoena for J.D.'s testimony due to potential psychological harm was also upheld. The ruling emphasized the respondent's impaired parental judgment demonstrated by long-term sexual abuse, creating a substantial risk to his children.

child abuseneglectFamily CourtAppellate Divisionparental judgmentout-of-court statementscorroborationsubpoenaPTSDderivative neglect
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. CA 15-00709
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2015

ANDERSON, ROBERT JAMES v. KERNAN, JAMES M.

Plaintiff Robert James Anderson initiated an action against James M. Kernan and Marlene Kernan, seeking damages for an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement. The purpose of this alleged venture was to develop a market for workers' compensation insurance coverage through professional employer organizations (PEO). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that both Marlene Kernan and James M. Kernan made prima facie showings that they did not agree to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff. The court further found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, noting that an 'agreement to agree' on a general principle is unenforceable due to indefiniteness in contract law.

Joint Venture AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract LawIndefinitenessAgreement to AgreeWorkers' Compensation InsuranceProfessional Employer OrganizationsCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2016

Padilla v. Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C.

Raul Padilla, an ophthalmic technician, filed a collective action against his employer, Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C., and its owner, Dr. Sheldon Rabin, seeking retroactive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The central issue was whether Padilla was an 'exempt' salaried professional employee. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court found that Padilla did not meet the 'salary basis' test required for the FLSA's learned professional exemption, thus granting his motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim regarding this exemption. However, issues regarding the 'primary duty' test for the NYLL exemption, statute of limitations (willfulness), and liquidated damages were deemed triable issues for a jury.

FLSANYLLOvertime PayExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionSalary Basis TestPrimary Duty TestSummary JudgmentWillfulnessLiquidated Damages
References
28
Case No. CA 13-00824
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2013

ZARNOCH, JERAD M. v. LUCKINA, ROBERT W.

This case concerns a personal injury action under New York's Labor Law and common-law negligence. Plaintiff Jerad M. Zarnoch was injured while assisting defendant Robert W. Luckina in raising an exterior wall during construction when the wall fell. Plaintiff sought partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court granted conditionally, while dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding plaintiff met his burden under Labor Law § 240 (1) and rejected defendant's arguments regarding the de minimis elevation differential and common-law negligence. The court also upheld the defendant's right to amend his answer to assert a special employee defense, affirming the lower court's decision in its entirety.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-related FallSpecial Employee DefenseCommon-Law Negligence
References
9
Case No. CA 13-01421
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAZELLA, JANICE v. BEALS, M.D., WILLIAM

This case involves a medical malpractice and wrongful death action where William Beals, M.D. (defendant) appealed an amended judgment awarding money damages to Janice Mazella, as administratrix of the estate of Joseph Mazella, deceased (plaintiff). The defendant sought to set aside the jury's verdict, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended judgment, finding a valid line of reasoning supported the jury's conclusion that the defendant deviated from the standard of care, proximately causing the decedent's injuries. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the admission of certain documents and the absence of a special verdict sheet. A dissenting opinion argued that intervening medical treatment severed the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the decedent's suicide, and that an evidentiary error regarding a consent agreement with the Office of Professional Medical Conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseNegligenceJury VerdictPosttrial MotionEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyConsent AgreementOffice of Professional Medical Conduct
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,615 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