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

M.S. ex rel. R.R. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff M.S., individually and on behalf of her autistic son R.R., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. sought tuition reimbursement for R.R.’s unilateral private school placement after challenging the adequacy of the Department’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) initially sided with M.S., but a State Review Officer (SRO) reversed this decision, finding the IEP compliant with IDEA. In the federal district court, M.S. appealed the SRO's decision. The court, affording due deference to the SRO's expertise, upheld the SRO's finding that the Department’s IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate, thereby denying M.S.'s motion for summary judgment and granting the Department's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationAutismTuition ReimbursementIndividualized Education ProgramDue ProcessAdministrative AppealSummary JudgmentEducational LawDisability Rights
References
30
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1981

J. A. R. Management Corp. v. Sweeney

J. A. R. Management Corp. sold an apartment building to J. R. R. Realty Co., allegedly violating a collective bargaining agreement with Local 32B-32J S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO by failing to give notice and ensure the buyer adopted the agreement. The union initiated arbitration against both J. A. R. and J. R. R. and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against J. R. R. Petitioners J. A. R. and J. R. R. sought to vacate the arbitration notice, arguing NLRB pre-emption. The Supreme Court granted their motion. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the notice to arbitrate was vacated only for J. R. R. Realty Co., while the motion against J. A. R. Management Corp. was denied. Arbitration against J. A. R. is stayed pending the NLRB's resolution of claims against J. R. R., after which arbitration may proceed for any unresolved disputes arising from the collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRB Pre-emptionVacate Notice to ArbitrateEmployer-Union DisputeSale of BusinessSuccessor EmployerUnfair Labor PracticesStay of ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durant v. A.C.S. State & Local Solutions Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Durant filed a lawsuit against A.C.S. State and Local Solutions, Inc. (ACS) alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Durant, a customer service representative, claimed she received two sexually explicit notes from a co-worker, Terri Simeon. Upon reporting the second note, ACS swiftly responded by moving Durant's workstation and disciplining Simeon, which ended the direct harassment. Despite these actions, Durant resigned, asserting constructive discharge because Simeon was not fired. The court granted summary judgment in favor of ACS, ruling that there was no quid pro quo harassment, the environment was not sufficiently hostile, no constructive discharge occurred, and her state law claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also failed or were time-barred.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentQuid Pro QuoConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityCorrective ActionCo-worker MisconductEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII
References
21
Case No. 2020 NYSlipOp 01969 [181 AD3d 520]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2020

S.A. v. R.H.

This case concerns a child custody dispute where the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the father, S.A., legal and residential custody, with final decision-making authority, and ordered supervised visitation for the mother, R.H. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The mother's challenges regarding temporary custody, relocation without an evidentiary hearing, and claims of being deprived of a fair trial were deemed either unpreserved, moot, or without merit by the appellate court. Additionally, the court found the mother responsible for an internet website that caused harm, emphasizing that her attitude towards settlement and her actions implicated her parental fitness. The decision consistently prioritized the child's best interests throughout the proceedings.

Child CustodyParental RightsSupervised VisitationAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildJudicial DiscretionRelocation DisputeEvidentiary HearingFair TrialAttorney for Child
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camotex, S.R.L. v. Hunt

Camotex, S.R.L. sued Lamar Hunt, Bache, and Merrill Lynch, alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the silver commodities markets in 1980. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was time-barred because Camotex's cause of action arose no later than May 1980. Camotex countered that the brokers' role was fraudulently concealed, invoking equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The court examined whether public information before May 1980 provided sufficient notice to Camotex of the brokers' involvement. It found that early press accounts did not suggest an unusual role for the brokers beyond large-scale ordinary services. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that insufficient information was available to trigger the statute of limitations before May 1980.

Market ManipulationSilver CommoditiesStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFraudulent ConcealmentSummary Judgment MotionBroker InvolvementNotice RequirementDue DiligenceConspiracy Allegations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re H. R.

The Law Guardian for the infant H. R. filed an application seeking an order to place H. R. in the certified foster home of Mr. and Mrs. S., where his three half-siblings already reside. H. R. was born drug-positive and with syphilis, requiring special care. The Rockland County Department of Social Services opposed the placement, citing New York State Department of Social Services regulations regarding household capacity and the special needs of the children, arguing it would jeopardize the care of the other eight children in the S. home. The court, citing New York Family Court Act § 1027-a, emphasized the strong state policy of keeping siblings together and the presumption that such placement is in the child's best interests. The court found the Department's opposition to be based on speculation rather than concrete evidence of harm, and therefore insufficient to overcome the legal presumption. Consequently, the court granted the application, directing the Commissioner of Social Services to place infant H. R. with the S. foster family, with an expectation of continued monitoring by the Commissioner.

Child welfaresibling placementfoster carebest interests of the childFamily Court ActDepartment of Social Servicesdrug addictionhandicapped childrenjudicial discretionNew York law
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2007

In re G.S.

A nursing home, Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, filed a petition for the appointment of a guardian of the property for G.S., an alleged incapacitated person, citing an outstanding debt of over $200,000. G.S.'s son, D.R., held a power of attorney and health care proxy, managing her finances, including the proceeds from the sale of her home. The nursing home alleged D.R. mishandled funds and was uncooperative, seeking to revoke the power of attorney. The court, however, found no clear and convincing evidence of mishandling, and G.S. reaffirmed her trust in her son. The court denied the petition, emphasizing that a guardianship application is not the appropriate avenue for debt collection and that G.S. had a sufficient plan for her affairs through her son.

GuardianshipIncapacitationPower of AttorneyMental Hygiene LawFinancial Mismanagement AllegationNursing Home LitigationDebt CollectionFiduciary ResponsibilityCourt DiscretionElder Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,510 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