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

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Covino v. Hagemann

The plaintiff, Lee Covino, sued defendant Ray E. Hagemann for defamation (libel and slander) after Hagemann sent a note to Covino, copied to Borough President Guy Molinari, accusing Covino of 'racially insensitive attitudes' towards Ed Watkins. Hagemann also allegedly repeated these statements to newspaper employees. The court considered whether the statements were actionable facts or protected opinions. Applying the three-prong test from Gross v New York Times Co., the court found terms like 'racially insensitive' to be vague, ambiguous opinions incapable of being proven true or false, and not implying undisclosed defamatory facts. The court also rejected claims that the statements constituted a crime or harmed Covino in his profession, stating they were nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action was granted, and the complaint was dismissed, with attorneys' fees denied.

DefamationLibelSlanderFreedom of SpeechOpinion vs FactCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissRacially InsensitivePublic OfficialsEmployment Dispute
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2009

In re Sasha B.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Bronx County, dated June 22, 2009, which found a respondent mother neglected her child. The determination stemmed from an incident where the mother left her sleeping 11.5-year-old child alone on a subway train. The child subsequently navigated her way back to school. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding determination of neglect, citing corroborating statements and the child's inability to get home, which indicated an imminent risk of harm. However, the appeal concerning the child's placement was dismissed as moot. A dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not establish "imminent danger" as legally defined, noting that the child safely returned to school and prior alleged incidents lacked sufficient corroboration.

Child NeglectSubway IncidentParental SupervisionImminent DangerCorroboration of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineDissenting OpinionChild Welfare
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brusca v. El Al Israel Airlines

The case involves an appeal in a negligence action where plaintiff Robert Brusca, a construction worker, suffered facial injuries at a job site of El Al Israel Airlines, with E. W. Howell, Inc. as the general contractor. The primary issue on appeal was the trial court's restriction of Police Officer Cannorozzo's testimony regarding a statement made by John Conlin, Howell's job superintendent, to only Conlin's credibility and not as proof of fact. The appellate court found this to be an error, asserting that an admission by a party's agent, made within the scope of their authority, is admissible for its truth, even if not based on personal knowledge. The court concluded that Conlin was Howell's authorized spokesman and his statement should have been considered as evidence of the facts. Consequently, the judgment was modified, affirmed as modified, and a new trial was granted for the remaining parties and causes.

NegligencePersonal InjuryHearsay RuleAgent AdmissionScope of AuthorityImpeachmentJury VerdictNew TrialAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2001

Mulhern v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves Kevin Mulhern, a former employee of Eastman Kodak Company, who sued Kodak for discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL) due to his Nail-Patella Syndrome. Mulhern alleged that Kodak failed to reasonably accommodate his disability by not allowing him to work exclusively in the less physically demanding PRS area, despite his ability to perform those tasks. Kodak argued that rotation to more strenuous 3R tasks was an essential job function and that Mulhern's disability application statements contradicted his ability to work. The court denied Kodak's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the essential functions of Mulhern's job, the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the interpretation of his disability application statements. The court also found triable issues of fact regarding the FMLA claim.

ADAFMLANYHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentWork RestrictionsMedical LeaveJudicial Estoppel
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Huschle Bros.

The court affirmed Special Term's decision to strike certain paragraphs from the defendant's answer due to redundancy and failure to comply with Civil Practice Act § 241, which requires plain and concise statements of material facts in pleadings, even in libel actions. Specifically, the court found the material insufficient as a defense of justification if it purported to apply general statements about labor unions to the plaintiff union. The decision further clarified the requirements for pleading justification, stating that particular facts and circumstances constituting the truth must be set forth in detail, rather than merely reiterating libelous words. Additionally, for pleading mitigation, the court mandated that specific mitigating circumstances, including sources of information and grounds for belief, be stated to demonstrate an absence of actual malice, pursuant to Civil Practice Act § 338. Finally, the court addressed the burden of proof for establishing actual malice in cases involving qualified privilege, noting that it generally rests with the plaintiff once a relationship giving rise to qualified privilege is established.

LibelPleading standardsJustification defenseMitigation defenseActual maliceQualified privilegeCivil Practice ActRedundancy in pleadingsMaterial factsBurden of proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pappas v. Air France

Plaintiff Mr. Pappas sued defendant Air France for wrongful discharge and defamation after being dismissed for allegedly attempting to steal a champagne bottle. Mr. Pappas contended that his dismissal breached his employment contract and that statements made by Air France management were defamatory. The court granted Air France's motion for summary judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, determining that under New York law, there was no express limitation to the at-will employment. For the defamation claim, summary judgment was granted for statements made in private due to qualified privilege, but denied for statements made in a public corridor, where a genuine issue of fact regarding malice existed.

Wrongful DischargeDefamationSummary JudgmentAt-Will EmploymentEmployee HandbookQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceSlander per seBreach of ContractDiversity of Citizenship
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,681 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