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

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.T. ex rel. N.M. v. New York City Department of Education

The plaintiff, M.T., on behalf of her son N.M., challenged the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision denying tuition reimbursement for N.M.'s placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision which found the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide N.M. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court found that the SRO improperly relied on retrospective testimony regarding the possibility of extending a 1:1 transitional paraprofessional beyond the four months provided in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Citing recent Second Circuit precedent (R.E. and Reyes), the court ruled that such retrospective adjustments are impermissible. Due to the court's lack of educational expertise and the unclear centrality of this error to the SRO's decision, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was remanded to the state administrative officers for further consideration in light of the Reyes decision.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationSummary JudgmentRemandState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerRetrospective TestimonyTransitional Paraprofessional
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B.T. v. D.M.

The petitioner, B.T., sought to extend an order of protection against her husband, respondent D.M., and alleged a violation of a previous order. D.M. counter-petitioned for visitation with their child. The court denied B.T.'s violation petition, finding insufficient evidence that D.M. orchestrated his older son's actions. However, B.T.'s request to extend the order of protection was granted for two additional years, citing D.M.'s history of severe domestic violence against B.T. (witnessed by the child) and continued harassment including stalking and threatening phone calls even after the initial order. D.M.'s petition for visitation was denied based on the child's best interests; a forensic evaluator reported the child suffered trauma from witnessing the violence and opposed visitation, noting forcing visits could worsen the child's high anxiety and fearfulness. The court found D.M.'s testimony not credible and supported the forensic evaluator's assessment.

Domestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionChild VisitationChild CustodyForensic PsychologyChild TraumaParental BehaviorBest Interests of the ChildHarassmentStalking
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.M. v. New York City Department of Education

This case involves parents (J.M. and N.M.) and their child (L.M.) seeking tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for L.M.'s private school tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2011-12 school year. L.M., diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and classified with Autism, was offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by the DOE, including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement at the Hungerford School. The parents rejected the placement and unilaterally re-enrolled L.M. privately. The court, deferring to the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision over the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, found that the IEP's procedural deficiencies regarding the transition plan did not deprive L.M. of a FAPE when the IEP was viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court determined that the parents' objections to the Hungerford School (size, noise, socialization concerns) were impermissibly speculative and did not demonstrate that Hungerford could not implement the IEP. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the DOE had offered L.M. a FAPE.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentProcedural DeficienciesPlacement ChallengesAuditory Sensitivities
References
43
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 27117
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2007

Matter of Frances W. v. Steven M.

Petitioner Frances W. sought child support from respondent Steven M. for her niece, Melissa M. The court denied the application, affirming prior findings by a Referee and another Judge that Ms. W. had improperly brainwashed Melissa into falsely believing her father sexually abused her, thereby destroying their relationship. The court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel and cited Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. v Meehan, concluding that Ms. W. forfeited her right to child support due to her egregious conduct. The decision emphasized that Ms. W. should not profit from her own wrongdoing, but clarified that Melissa M. retains the right to file her own support or enforcement petition against her father.

Child SupportParental AlienationCollateral EstoppelFamily LawChild Abuse AllegationsCustody DisputeVisitation InterferenceJudicial DiscretionForensic PsychologyChild Welfare
References
19
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01513 [170 AD3d 407]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2019

M&M Realty of N.Y., LLC v. Burlington Ins. Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding an insurance dispute. M&M Realty and its insurer, Tower Insurance Company, sought reimbursement from Burlington Insurance Company, L&M Restoration's insurer. Tower had defended M&M in an underlying action after Burlington refused M&M's tender. The central issue is the ambiguity of a contract between M&M and L&M regarding whether M&M was to be named an additional insured under Burlington's policy. The court found that extrinsic evidence did not conclusively establish intent, thus requiring a factfinder. If M&M was intended as an additional insured, Burlington would be obligated to reimburse Tower for defense costs due to the reasonable possibility of L&M's acts causing the injury. The court denied Burlington's motion for summary judgment and vacated the declaration in its favor, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision.

Insurance Coverage DisputeAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionContract InterpretationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyAppellate ReviewAmbiguity in ContractReimbursement of Defense CostsProximate Cause of Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,564 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