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
Apr 02, 2003

Faunteleroy v. Mercado

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 2, 2003, which transferred custody of her child to the father after a hearing. The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing the significant weight given to a hearing court's findings in custody cases, provided they are supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court reiterated that the paramount consideration in awarding custody is the child's best interests, necessitating a modification only if the totality of circumstances warrants such a change. Factors considered include the quality of home environment, parental guidance, emotional and intellectual development, financial stability, parental fitness, and the duration of the current custody arrangement. The hearing court properly weighed these factors, observing both parents, hearing testimony from various individuals including a social worker, and interviewing the child in camera, ultimately awarding custody to the father.

Child CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildCustody ModificationParental FitnessJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary HearingQueens CountyFamily Court Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laici v. Baldwin

This case involves a custody dispute between a petitioner mother and respondent father concerning their two children, Jacob and Sarah. The couple separated in 1982, and custody was temporarily placed with the Department of Social Services in 1984. Petitioner sought sole custody in 1986, supported by social workers, a psychologist, and the Law Guardian who cited her efforts to improve her life and ability to meet the children's emotional needs. Conversely, the respondent father largely remained unemployed and refused psychological testing. The court initially awarded custody to the respondent, emphasizing his current wife's stable living arrangement. The dissenting judges argue this decision erroneously prioritized the father's *derived* stability over the mother's demonstrated efforts and capacity for the children's emotional development, advocating for a reversal and award of custody to the petitioner mother based on overwhelming expert testimony.

custody disputeparental rightschild welfarebest interests of the childdissenting opinionfamily lawpsychological evaluationparental stabilitydomestic abuseappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Von Dwingelo v. Dwingelo

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County, which granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order. The parties, married in 1991, had a daughter, Crystal, born in 1992, and initially shared joint custody with the respondent having physical custody. In 1998, the petitioner sought physical custody, and the Family Court ruled in his favor, prompting the respondent's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the modification, citing substantial changes in circumstances over four years that warranted a change to ensure Crystal's best interests. The respondent's unstable lifestyle, including frequent moves, a welfare fraud conviction, and disregard for visitation, contrasted with the petitioner's established stability and efforts to maintain a relationship with his daughter.

custody modificationchild custodybest interest of the childparental fitnessfamily courtvisitation rightsappellate reviewparental stabilityresidential changeswelfare fraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Custody of Rebecca B.

In a child custody proceeding, the court unanimously affirmed orders from the Family Court, New York County. These orders denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, granted the Law Guardian's motion to quash subpoenas, and denied the respondent's motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court found that Lawyers for Children, Inc., as the child's Law Guardian, had standing to seek a change of custody. It also ruled that communications between the child and the Law Guardian, as well as a hired social worker, were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, justifying the quashing of subpoenas. Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the psychiatrist was properly denied due to a lack of proof of bias.

Child CustodyLaw Guardian StandingSubpoena QuashalAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrinePsychiatrist DisqualificationFamily Court OrdersAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionLegal Representation of Child
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flynn-Stallmer v. Stallmer

Petitioner Susannah Flynn-Stallmer appealed three orders: two from Family Court concerning child custody awarded to respondent Timothy J. Stallmer, and one from Supreme Court denying her motion to vacate the Family Court order on grounds of judicial recusal. Family Court awarded custody to the father, Timothy J. Stallmer, finding it in the children's best interest after weighing various factors including the parents' stability, work records, and the father's supportive extended family, while also considering the mother's inconsistencies and extramarital relationship. The appeals court affirmed Family Court's custody decision, finding it supported by the record and that the court did not improperly rely on matters outside the record or err in denying the mother's motion to present additional testimony. Finally, the Supreme Court's denial of the mother's application to set aside the custody order due to alleged judicial disqualification was affirmed, as the court found no familial relationship between the Family Court Judge and the respondent that would mandate recusal under Judiciary Law § 14, and the Judge's disclosure of a tenuous past tie did not reflect bias.

Child CustodyJudicial RecusalFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewDiscretionCredibilityParental StabilityFamily Court Act Article 6CPLR 4404(b)
References
6
Case No. Cr. No. 03-1295
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2006

In Re Stabile

This case addresses the court's jurisdiction and available remedies concerning alleged improper interference with a court-appointed monitor. The Monitor, appointed in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for the New York Racing Association (NYRA), petitioned the court against respondents Anthony A. Stabile and Stephen E. Saracco for attempts to improperly influence the Monitor after its term ended. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under both an extension clause in the Appointing Order and ancillary jurisdiction. It also determined that the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) was an appropriate basis for relief. The Monitor's request for an injunction against Saracco was denied, as his actions were deemed inappropriate but not severe enough to warrant an order, given his status as an attorney. However, an evidentiary hearing was ordered for Stabile to resolve disputed facts regarding his alleged threats and to determine the necessity of an injunction.

Court-appointed monitorDeferred prosecution agreementAll Writs ActSubject matter jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionInjunctionCriminal procedureCorporate malfeasanceInterference with court orderNew York Racing Association
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. White

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order granting primary physical custody of the parties' two children to the father. The parents, previously married, had a daughter (born 1999) and a son (born 2002). The mother sought treatment for alcohol and prescription drug abuse in Tennessee. During her treatment, the father moved with the children to Albany, New York, for an employment opportunity. After treatment, the parents could not agree on residency, leading the father to petition for custody, which the mother cross-petitioned. Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to the father, establishing a parenting schedule for the mother. The mother appealed this decision, arguing the Family Court did not properly weigh certain testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision to award primary physical custody to the father was in the children's best interests, given the stability he provided as the primary caretaker, his active involvement in their academic and medical care, and their thriving in his environment.

Custody DisputesChild Best InterestsParental FitnessSubstance Abuse TreatmentRelocation of ChildrenAppellate Review of Family CourtPrimary Physical CustodyJoint Legal CustodyParenting ScheduleChild Stability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2000

Walton v. Walton

The mother appealed a Family Court order from Queens County, dated July 24, 2000, which awarded custody of her child to the father following a hearing. The appellate court, while possessing broad review authority, emphasized the significant weight given to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and the parties' character. Custody decisions, it noted, are primarily guided by the child's best interests, considering factors such as home environment, parental guidance, emotional and intellectual development, financial stability, and parental fitness. The court concluded that the hearing court properly considered these factors based on extensive testimony and observations. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order granting custody to the father.

Custody DisputeFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interest of ChildParental GuidanceWitness CredibilityHearing Court DeferenceChild DevelopmentParental FitnessJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02631
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

Matter of Stabile v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Is., Inc.

Claimant Anthony Stabile, a nurse, experienced an unwitnessed cardiac arrest in his employer's parking lot after leaving work. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, applying the presumption under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 due to the unwitnessed nature of the accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the employer and carrier successfully rebutted the presumption with a medical consultant's testimony. The consultant opined that Stabile's condition was due to preexisting conditions and not causally related to his work activities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the claimant failed to demonstrate a causal relation to work.

Workers' CompensationCardiac ArrestCausal RelationUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionsEmployment InjuryNurse
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 638 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