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. 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

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. 2020 NY Slip Op 03164
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Tineo v. M D R J LLC

Juan Fernandez Tineo, a construction worker, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on the job, including his left index finger and post-concussion headaches. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his claim, finding attachment to the labor market and directing ongoing awards. The employer, M D R J LLC, and its carrier sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) but their application was denied due to incomplete submission, specifically failing to specify when objections were interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's discretion to deny review for procedural non-compliance, especially when a party is represented by counsel.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewRegulatory ComplianceApplication for ReviewAdministrative ProcedureProcedural DenialBoard DiscretionInjured WorkerLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial Disability
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.M. v. New York City Department of Education

This case involves parents (J.M. and N.M.) and their child (L.M.) seeking tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for L.M.'s private school tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2011-12 school year. L.M., diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and classified with Autism, was offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by the DOE, including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement at the Hungerford School. The parents rejected the placement and unilaterally re-enrolled L.M. privately. The court, deferring to the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision over the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, found that the IEP's procedural deficiencies regarding the transition plan did not deprive L.M. of a FAPE when the IEP was viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court determined that the parents' objections to the Hungerford School (size, noise, socialization concerns) were impermissibly speculative and did not demonstrate that Hungerford could not implement the IEP. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the DOE had offered L.M. a FAPE.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentProcedural DeficienciesPlacement ChallengesAuditory Sensitivities
References
43
Case No. 811336/22E
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2024

J.M. v. Rozanov

The plaintiff, J.M., sued Victor Rozanov for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of New York City Administrative Code § 10-180 and Civil Rights Law § 50-b. The claims arose from the defendant's nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images and videos of the plaintiff online, which included her face and full name. This malicious conduct, which continued even after a criminal conviction and a prior civil judgment in New Jersey, caused J.M. severe emotional distress, manifesting as panic attacks, depression, and anxiety. Following an inquest where the plaintiff's testimony and a clinical social worker's report were presented, the court found the defendant liable. Consequently, the court awarded J.M. $500,000 for past and future pain and suffering and an additional $2,500,000 in punitive damages.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNonconsensual Dissemination of Intimate ImagesRevenge PornCivil Rights ViolationsDamages AwardPunitive DamagesDefault JudgmentEmotional DistressMental HealthOnline Harassment
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2016

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

Plaintiffs, Louis DeCosmo, as administrator of M.D.'s estate and father of J.D., sued various state and county defendants, along with individuals, alleging constitutional rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death, and survival action under state law. The claims stemmed from the alleged failure of child protective services to intervene effectively, leading to M.D.'s death and J.D.'s injuries while in their mother's custody and her abusive partner's care. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state defendants and failure to state a claim for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory liability, and Monell liability for county defendants. The Court granted the State Defendants' motion based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing claims against New York State and OCFS. Claims against Dutchess DCFS and Ulster DSS were dismissed as they lack the capacity to be sued. The Court further dismissed Fourth Amendment claims due to a lack of alleged affirmative seizure by Dutchess Defendants and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, finding no state-created danger or special relationship exception applied as M.D. and J.D. were not in state custody. Supervisory and Monell liability claims against county defendants also failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient factual allegations of unconstitutional policies or customs. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsChild AbuseGovernmental ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Due ProcessState-Created DangerSpecial RelationshipMonell DoctrineSupervisory Liability
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McSweeney v. M.J. Rudolph Corp.

This action was brought under the Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, with the plaintiff alleging negligence by the defendant and third-party defendant caused the injury and death of the plaintiff's deceased. The court dismissed defendant M.J. Rudolph Corporation's third-party complaint against Penn Central Transportation Co. due to insufficient evidence of negligence. The plaintiff's complaint against M.J. Rudolph Corporation was dismissed because the court concluded, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff's deceased, a crane operator on a non-self-propelled barge, was not a 'seaman' within the meaning of the Jones Act, as his duties did not primarily aid in navigation or contribute to the vessel's function or mission. Judgment was therefore entered in favor of the defendant, denying the plaintiff relief.

Jones ActSeaman StatusNegligenceCrane OperatorBargeVessel in NavigationMerchant Marine ActPermanent ConnectionAid to NavigationDismissal
References
4
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 14-00281
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAYER, CHERYL D. v. CONRAD, MATTHEW J.

This wrongful death action arose from a construction site accident where the plaintiff's decedent, a Fisher Concrete, Inc. employee, was fatally injured when an unsecured embankment collapsed. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence, while defendants filed a third-party action seeking indemnification from Fisher Concrete, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing an issue of fact regarding the defendants' actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification, concluding that the defendants could not be held vicariously liable for the third party's negligence.

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityExcavation WorkErie CountyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 3,161 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