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
Jul 27, 2009

Ciccone v. Ciccone

In a visitation proceeding, the father appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which granted the mother’s petition for supervised visitation with their daughter. The Family Court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that despite the mother's history of mental health problems and a past admission of physically abusing an adult son, her condition had significantly improved through voluntary mental health treatment and she showed remorse. The decision to award monthly supervised visits was supported by a court-appointed forensic psychologist, a social worker who supervised visits, and the attorney for the child. The Family Court also considered a finding of a family offense against the mother but determined it did not establish that supervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare, especially since experts reported the mother acted appropriately with the child during visits.

Visitation rightsFamily lawChild custodyParental rightsSupervised visitationMental healthParental fitnessBest interest of the childAppellate reviewEvidentiary basis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1998

Millett v. Millett

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement for two sons. Initially, the parents had joint custody, but the petitioner sought to limit the respondent's visitation due to alleged mental abuse of the children. The Family Court awarded sole custody to the petitioner and mandated that the respondent's visitation be arranged by the children's therapist. On appeal, the court affirmed the termination of joint custody and the requirement for supervised visitation. However, it found that delegating the authority to determine the specifics of supervised visitation to a therapist was an improper delegation of judicial power. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Family Court of Warren County for further proceedings to establish the nature and frequency of the supervised contacts between the respondent and the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsChild mental healthParental fitnessFamily CourtModification of orderAppellate reviewRemandSupervised visitationDelegation of judicial authority
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raychelle J. v. Kendell K.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Broome County, which modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement between unmarried parents. The mother initiated proceedings after the father physically assaulted one of their sons and the mother during a dispute. The Family Court determined the father committed a family offense, issued an order of protection, granted the mother sole custody, and ordered supervised visitation for the father. The father appealed, challenging only the supervised visitation restriction. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, citing the father's history of temper outbursts, inappropriate use of corporal punishment, and his refusal to participate in therapy, concluding that supervised visitation was in the children's best interests.

Custody modificationSupervised visitationFamily offense findingCorporal punishmentChild safetyParental conductBest interests of childrenAppellate reviewFamily Court discretionDomestic violence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New v. Sharma

The father appealed an order that granted him supervised daytime visitation. This appellate court reversed the Family Court's order dated November 30, 2012, stating that the Family Court erred by limiting the scope of the hearing. The father was not given an opportunity to present evidence regarding his petition to modify a previous visitation order. The matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing. Supervised visitation is to continue pending the new hearing and determination.

Visitation rightsChild custodyFamily Court ActAppellate reviewSupervised visitationModification of orderDue processHearing proceduresRemandParental rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura A. K. v. Timothy M.

The case involved appeals by a father concerning two Family Court orders related to child custody and visitation in Orange County. The first order, dated March 23, 1992, denied his petition for joint custody, while the second, dated February 25, 1993, limited his visitation rights to supervised Sunday afternoons. Additionally, a law guardian had cross-appealed the first order regarding the father's expanded visitation rights, but this cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed both Family Court orders, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount in custody proceedings. The court found that the parents' hostility and inability to cooperate, along with the mother being the primary caregiver, justified the sole custody award to the mother and the imposed visitation limitations.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewJoint CustodySole CustodyBest Interest of the ChildParental AntagonismSupervised VisitationDomestic Relations Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2011

Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K.

The Family Court, New York County, issued an order modifying a temporary visitation order to grant the petitioner unsupervised visitation with the parties' child. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs. The court proceeded without a plenary evidentiary hearing, citing numerous prior appearances, a December 2010 adjudication of family offenses by the petitioner against the respondent, and an existing five-year order of protection. The court considered testimony and reports from a forensic social worker who had observed approximately 80 supervised visits and proposed a plan for gradual unsupervised visitation. The determination that unsupervised visitation served the child's best interests was supported by the social worker's findings of positive interactions and bonding between the petitioner and child. Despite the petitioner's history of alcohol and substance abuse, court-ordered drug tests were negative. The court's plan mitigated risks by mandating exchanges at a family services agency, which had successfully prevented violent incidents for nearly a year.

Visitation RightsChild's Best InterestsFamily Court OrderDomestic Violence HistorySubstance Abuse TestingForensic Social Worker TestimonyUnsupervised VisitationOrder of ProtectionParental BondingEvidentiary Hearing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pero v. Musolino

The petitioner mother appealed two Family Court orders concerning child custody and supervised visitation. The first order awarded custody to the father with the mother's visitation supervised by Virginia Cordero. The second order modified the first, stipulating supervision by a professional child care worker. The appeal from the visitation supervision by Virginia Cordero in the first order was dismissed as superseded. The remaining part of the first order and the second order were affirmed. The court emphasized the child's best interest, found the custody award to the father to be in conformity with the evidence, and rejected the mother's arguments regarding supervised visitation and the failure to appoint a law guardian.

child custodyvisitation rightsFamily Court ActDomestic Relations Lawbest interest of childsupervised visitationlaw guardianappealfamily lawappellate decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift v. Swift

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner-mother from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted the respondent-father unsupervised visitation rights with their two children. The petitioner alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, Sarah, by the respondent, leading to a temporary order for supervised visitation. Despite two reports to the State Child Abuse Hotline, which were deemed unfounded after investigation, the petitioner sought termination of visitation. The Family Court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof regarding the sexual abuse allegations, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings and its reasons for rejecting corroborating "validation evidence," noting concerns about the petitioner's influence, the social worker's inexperience, and the context of contested custody litigation.

Child VisitationSexual Abuse AllegationsCredibility FindingsHearsay CorroborationValidation EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court OrderParental HostilityChild Custody LitigationExpert Testimony
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04169
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2021

Matter of Derek KK. v. Jennifer KK.

The father appealed a Family Court order that dismissed his modification application, granted the mother sole custody with supervised visitation, and issued a stay-away order. The Appellate Division found a sound basis for the Family Court's determination of a change in circumstances and the children's best interests supporting sole custody and supervised visitation due to the parents' inability to co-parent and the father's harassing behavior. The court modified the order by changing a prerequisite for modifying visitation (father's enrollment in a parenting program) to a component of supervised visitation. Additionally, the Appellate Division affirmed the issuance of the stay-away order against the father, citing sufficient evidence of harassment and stalking. The court also upheld the Family Court's decision to not conduct a Lincoln hearing due to the children's young ages and the contentious family dynamics.

CustodyVisitationFamily OffenseOrder of ProtectionHarassmentStalkingParental AlienationBest Interests of the ChildChange in CircumstancesSupervised Visitation
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,167 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