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
May 08, 1992

In re Rebecca B.

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order that denied a father's motion to transfer sole legal custody of his daughter from the mother to him. The Appellate Division modified the original order, granting the transfer of sole legal custody to the appellant father with liberal visitation rights for the respondent mother. The decision was influenced by expert testimony from a clinical director, another psychiatrist, and a social worker, all recommending a custody change due to the mother's punitive disciplinary methods and attempts to exclude the father. The court also considered the child's preference to live with her father, deeming the trial court's initial decision to lack a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody TransferParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExpert TestimonyParental AlienationVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Kemp v. Kemp

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County concerning the modification of a prior custody order for two sons. The parties, who divorced in 1999, initially had a separation agreement granting joint legal custody with the respondent having primary physical custody. However, due to the respondent's subsequent criminal convictions, probation violation, and incarceration in January 2002, the petitioner gained actual physical custody of the children. The Family Court subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody to the petitioner, citing several factors including the respondent's incarceration, lack of credibility, failure to address self-destructive behavior, and the stable home environment provided by the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding it to be based on a sound and substantial record, and rejected the respondent's contentions regarding joint custody and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Custody ModificationFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildParental FitnessChange in CircumstancesIncarcerationMental Health EvaluationCredibility AssessmentJoint CustodySole Custody
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Dunn

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody. The petitioner sought custody due to an alleged change in circumstances, specifically the respondent's relocation to Alaska and the children residing with him for significant periods. The Family Court had dismissed the petitioner's application and granted sole legal custody to the respondent, allowing her to remove the children to Alaska. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Family Court abused its discretion and that the relocation was not in the children's best interest, as the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the move away from the noncustodial parent and their extended family. The court granted joint legal custody to both parties, with primary physical custody awarded to the petitioner.

child custodyrelocation disputebest interest standardjoint legal custodyprimary physical custodyvisitation rightsFamily Court Act Article 6changed circumstancesappellate reversalparental relocation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Eldad LL v. Dannai MM.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order regarding the custody of a child born to Israeli citizens in 2014. The parents had a parenting agreement, but a forum selection clause designating Israeli courts was deemed unenforceable. The Family Court granted the father primary physical and sole legal custody, which the mother appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's jurisdiction over the matter and its determination of primary physical custody to the father. However, it modified the order by reversing the award of sole legal custody, granting joint legal custody to both parents while maintaining the prohibition on removing the child from the United States without consent. The case was remitted to Family Court to establish a new parenting time schedule for the mother, who had since moved to Israel.

Child CustodyJoint CustodySole CustodyParental RelocationInternational Custody DisputeForum Selection ClauseUCCJEABest Interests of the ChildFamily Law AppealParenting Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2008

Julia C. v. Phoebe L.

This case involves an appeal from an Order of the Family Court, New York County, which denied a respondent mother’s petition for sole custody of her child. Instead, sole custody was awarded to the paternal grandmother, Phoebe L., after a hearing. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, citing the best interests of the child and the totality of the circumstances, including testimony that the grandmother provided a supportive, structured, stable, and loving home environment. The court noted that even though the petitioner was a fit mother, she had not personally provided day-to-day care for the child.

Child CustodyFamily LawPaternal GrandmotherBest Interests of ChildSole CustodyAppellate DivisionCustody HearingParental FitnessDay-to-day CareStable Home Environment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2012

Savoca v. Bellofatto

The father appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, which, without a hearing, awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of their child. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that a custody determination requires a full and comprehensive hearing based on the child's best interests. The Family Court erred by granting custody without a hearing, failing to examine the parties or obtain a forensic report, and not making specific findings of fact. Additionally, the father was deprived of his statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262(a)(v), as he was not advised of his right to an attorney or an adjournment to obtain new counsel. The matter was remitted for an evidentiary hearing on custody and visitation and a new determination.

Child CustodyCustody AppealsEvidentiary HearingRight to CounselFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildDue ProcessParental RightsJudicial DiscretionRemand
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1993

Manchester v. Whitbeck

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Fulton County, entered December 15, 1993, which granted the respondent's application for a modification of a prior custody and visitation order, awarding sole custody to the respondent. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's findings, which alleged the petitioner's failure to provide for the child's minimal needs and demonstrated little parenting understanding. However, the appellate court found no support in the record for these findings, noting that some evidence was misinterpreted or explained by mediated agreements. It concluded that a change in custody was not warranted, as there was no indication it would substantially enhance the child’s welfare and the custodial parent was not shown to be unfit. Consequently, the order was modified by reversing the award of sole custody to the respondent and instead awarding sole custody to the petitioner, with liberal visitation to the respondent, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court to set an appropriate visitation schedule.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody ModificationBest Interest of the ChildParental FitnessJoint CustodyAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsFamily Court ActJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2007

Tonisha J. v. Paul P.

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order concerning child custody in New York County. The initial order, issued by Referee Elizabeth Barnett, denied the petitioner mother's request for permanent custody and granted the respondent father sole legal and physical custody. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, concluding that the Referee's findings lacked a sound and substantial basis, particularly in light of the mother's primary role in raising the child and her subsequent efforts to address past misconduct. The court found that the child was well cared for by the mother and that her past poor judgment did not negate her ability to be the custodial parent, especially after she obtained therapeutic assistance. Consequently, the father's petition was denied, the mother's petition was granted, and the matter was remanded for establishing a visitation schedule that serves the child's best interests.

Child CustodyFamily LawParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildCustodial ParentVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewReferee DecisionModification of Custody OrderForensic Social Worker Evaluation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rutland v. O'Brien

The father petitioned to modify a prior custody order, seeking sole legal custody of his children from the mother due to ongoing parental conflict and their inability to communicate effectively. The Family Court found joint custody unworkable, observing instances of both parents exhibiting poor behavior, including the mother denigrating the father and the father restricting communication between the children and the mother. Consequently, the Family Court granted the father sole legal custody while maintaining equal parenting time. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the Family Court's findings, despite a harmless error in admitting privileged testimony from the daughter's counselor.

Custody DisputeParental ConflictSole Legal CustodyJoint CustodyParenting ScheduleBest Interests of the ChildFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild TestimonyPrivileged Communication
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 6,502 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