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

Huddleston v. Rufrano

The mother appealed a Family Court order denying her objections to a child support magistrate's decision, which directed the father to pay $155 per week. The appellate court modified the order, increasing the father's child support obligation to $259 per week. The court found that the Support Magistrate failed to properly impute additional income to the father, including payments from his business, A & J Drain, Inc., and earnings generated by his father-in-law. The father's testimony regarding his finances was deemed incredible. The appellate court determined the father's annual income to be $78,830.82, justifying the increased child support payment.

Child SupportIncome ImputationSelf-EmploymentWorkers' CompensationCredibilityAppellate ReviewFamily LawModification of SupportFinancial DisclosureSupport Magistrate
References
5
Case No. No. 10-07-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2008

SSHG, LLC D/B/A Support Services Holdings Group and Legacy Support Services, LTD. v. Eric Ian Lewis

Eric Ian Lewis, an employee of SSHG, LLC, was injured on the job while using an electric hand planer. He sued his employer, a worker's compensation nonsubscriber, for negligence. A jury found for Lewis, and SSG appealed the judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn of obvious dangers and that Lewis's own negligence caused the injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the danger of using the planer on small pieces of wood without a jig was not obvious or commonly known to Lewis, thus SSG owed a duty to train and warn. The court also found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence finding against SSG.

Workplace NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnSafe WorkplacePower Tool InjuryWorker's Compensation NonsubscriberProximate CauseContributory Negligence (defense denied)Jury Verdict AppealAppellate Court Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madison County Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Chafee v. Felker

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, the father of a son born in 2002, failed to pay $25 per week in child support to Mary Chafee, as mandated by a May 2007 order. The Family Court affirmed the Support Magistrate's finding of willful violation and imposed a sentence of incarceration, conditional upon payment of $3,650 in arrears. The appellate court rejected the respondent's arguments, including his inability to pay due to lack of income and his claim regarding the $500 arrears cap, citing a lack of credible evidence and his failure to seek modification of the original support order. Consequently, the Family Court's determination was affirmed.

Child SupportWillful ViolationArrearsFamily Court ActParental ObligationContempt of CourtAbility to PayModification of SupportAppeal DecisionSupport Magistrate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spiegel v. Spiegel

The Family Court upheld the Support Magistrate's order, denying the father's objections. The Support Magistrate was found to have properly declined to draw an adverse inference against the mother for not presenting her current child care worker as a witness, as the testimony would have been cumulative. The court emphasized giving great deference to the Support Magistrate's evaluation of witness credibility. The record supported the finding that the father was responsible for $14,717.50 in child care arrears and $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses for the children. All other contentions by the father were deemed without merit.

Child SupportArrearsMedical ExpensesAdverse InferenceCumulative TestimonyFamily CourtSupport MagistrateJudicial ReviewCredibilityObjections
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02248
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2021

Matter of Anthony L. v. Bernadette R.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from Family Court that upheld a Support Magistrate's findings. The Support Magistrate had found that the respondent mother substantiated her reasonable childcare expenses and declined to credit the petitioner father for alleged overpayments for health insurance premiums predating his modification petition. The Appellate Division gave deference to the Support Magistrate's assessment of the mother's credibility regarding her job search and childcare costs while parenting a special needs child. It also reiterated that modifications to child support orders are effective only from the date of filing the modification petition.

Child supportChildcare expensesHealth insurance premiumsDownward modificationSupport MagistrateCredibility findingsLaw of the case doctrineEvidentiary rulingsRetroactive modificationFamily Court Act
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07472 [176 AD3d 1374]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of HALL v. DAVIS

William Hall (father) initiated a child support proceeding against Sarah Davis (mother) after their child began living with him. The Support Magistrate imputed income to the mother and ordered her to pay child support. The mother appealed, arguing that Family Court erred in upholding the Support Magistrate's income imputation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that while imputing income was appropriate, the specific amount imputed was not supported by the record, considering the mother's lack of current licensure and her full-time work on a farm. The court remitted the matter for a redetermination of the mother's support obligation.

Child supportImputed incomeFamily CourtAppellate DivisionParental obligationIncome calculationSupport MagistrateDiscretionFarming incomeSocial worker
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2013

St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Elizabeth V. v. Chad T.

In March 2013, Elizabeth V initiated a proceeding against respondent for willfully violating a 2010 child support order. A Support Magistrate found a willful violation, which the Family Court confirmed, subsequently sentencing the respondent to 30 days in jail. Respondent appealed this decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concluding that no appeal can be made from a consent order, and the challenge to the sentence was moot as respondent had already served his jail time.

Child Support EnforcementWillful ViolationFamily Court AppealConsent OrderMootness DoctrineIncarceration PenaltySt. Lawrence CountyAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,202 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