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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. 884/15
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2025

People v. K.D.

K.D., convicted of Murder in the Second Degree and originally sentenced to 18 years to life, sought resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The court found that K.D. was a victim of substantial domestic violence by the decedent, Norberto Valentin Cruz, which significantly contributed to her criminal behavior, and that her original sentence was unduly harsh. Despite the severity of the crime and the victim's family's anguish, the court considered K.D.'s remorse, rehabilitation efforts, lack of prior criminal history, and strong family support. Balancing these factors, the court vacated the original sentence and ordered a resentencing of 11 years imprisonment followed by 5 years of post-release supervision.

Domestic Violence Survivors Justice ActDVSJAResentencingMurder Second DegreeDomestic Violence VictimCriminal Procedure Law 440.47Penal Law 60.12Judicial DecisionRehabilitation EffortsMitigation Factors
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. D.P. Consulting Corp.

American Home Assurance Company (American), an insurer, commenced a declaratory judgment action against D.E Consulting Corp. (D.E) and AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (AvalonBay). American sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify D.E in an underlying personal injury action, Canteros v AvalonBay Communities, Inc., asserting that no 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 had occurred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied American's motion for summary judgment on this issue. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The appellate panel concluded that D.E had successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether Canteros sustained a 'grave injury,' thereby preventing a ruling, as a matter of law, that American had no potential obligation to indemnify D.E under its policy.

Declaratory judgmentIndemnificationContributionGrave injuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary judgmentInsurance policyEmployer liabilityTriable issue of factAppellate Division
References
7
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. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision

In re D.A.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order for child D.A., seeking placement with a maternal aunt, T.S., instead of the foster parent, D.L. Concurrently, D.L. and T.S. filed custody petitions. The court consolidated the matters, hearing extensive testimony regarding D.A.'s bond with D.L., Ms. S.'s inconsistent visitation, and the parents' neglect history. The court denied the County's modification application, finding no good cause and emphasizing D.A.'s strong bond and stability with D.L. It further directed the County to initiate proceedings for the termination of parental rights and dismissed both D.L.'s and T.S.'s custody petitions due to lack of standing.

Child NeglectFoster CareChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActDispositional Order ModificationBest Interests of the ChildPermanency PlanningKinship PlacementOnondaga County
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,203 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