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

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Campos v. Campos

This case involves an appeal by a respondent father concerning child support arrears. An initial support order was issued by default, and the arrears amount was subsequently recalculated multiple times by a Hearing Examiner. The Family Court confirmed an order setting arrears at $23,310. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that the Hearing Examiner failed to ascertain whether the respondent's income between 1990 and 1993 fell below or equaled the poverty income guidelines, as mandated by Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g). Given the respondent's documented unemployment, SSI benefits, and public assistance, the court concluded that child support arrears should not have exceeded $500 during that period. The matter was remitted for a new determination of arrears consistent with the poverty income guidelines.

Child Support ArrearsPoverty GuidelinesFamily Court ActSSI BenefitsPublic AssistanceUnemploymentPsychological ConditionRes JudicataAppellate ReviewReversal
References
5
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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Audra Hyek initiated an action against her former employer, Field Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). FSSI moved for summary judgment, which the court reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, specifically regarding disparate treatment in equipment, training, policy enforcement, or her termination compared to a male co-worker. Additionally, Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was deemed abandoned due to her failure to address Defendant's arguments in opposition papers. Consequently, the court granted FSSI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1986

Drago v. Drago

The father appealed a Family Court order from Nassau County, directing him to pay weekly child support and arrears to the Support Collection Unit for his daughter. The daughter, after her parents' divorce, was forced to leave her mother's home and was subsequently turned away by her father. She then sought refuge in a state-funded program and initiated support proceedings against her parents. The Family Court found the father still obligated to support her until age 21, rejecting his arguments that she forfeited support by leaving home or not adhering to his conditions. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the daughter had good cause to leave her parents' homes and her father's demands for her to attend boarding school or join the military were unreasonable.

Child SupportParental ObligationFamily CourtNassau CountyAppealAffirmed DecisionEmancipationParental ResponsibilityRunaway YouthGood Cause
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Martin (Trucking Support Servs., LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Anthony Martin, a truck driver, filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor determined he was an employee of Trucking Support Services, LLC (TSS) and Distribution Cooperative Network of NY (DCN) under the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act. TSS and DCN contested this, arguing Martin was an independent contractor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the initial determinations, finding Martin to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that TSS and DCN failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment and that the Fair Play Act was not preempted by federal law.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorCommercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play ActEmployee ClassificationLabor LawStatutory Presumption of EmploymentABC TestSeparate Business Entity TestFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActPreemption
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Daigle

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to suspend his child support obligation and denied the defendant's motion for counsel fees. The parties were divorced in 2001 and have two sons. The plaintiff sought to terminate child support, including private school tuition, based on the sons' abandonment, which he attributed largely to the defendant. The Supreme Court suspended child support, concluding that while the defendant had not willfully manipulated the sons, the sons had abandoned the plaintiff and were constructively emancipated. On appeal, the court reversed the suspension of child support, holding that the sons, aged 16 and 14, were not of employable age, a necessary prerequisite for constructive emancipation, and thus could not forfeit their right to support. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

Child SupportConstructive EmancipationParental AbandonmentVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewEmployable AgeSaratoga CountyCounsel FeesJudicial Discretion
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Grant

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Monroe County Child Support Collection Unit

This case concerns the priority of four liens against a $7,500 settlement received by Mr. Daniels. The liens include his attorney's charging lien, a workers' compensation lien by Legion Insurance, a child support lien by the Child Support Collection Unit for over $20,000, and a judgment lien by former landlord Robert Dykes. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, determined that the attorney's charging lien takes first priority based on logic and public policy, as the attorney created the fund benefiting all lienors. Legion Insurance's workers' compensation lien received second priority, as the Child Support Collection Unit had already had an opportunity to levy on the initial workers' compensation payments. The Child Support Collection Unit was placed third, and Robert Dykes's judgment lien was last. The court rejected arguments that CPLR 5242 (d) gave child support priority over statutory and charging liens in this specific context.

Lien PriorityAttorney's Charging LienWorkers' Compensation LienChild Support LienJudgment LienCPLR 5242 (d)Workers’ Compensation Law § 29Domestic Relations Law § 240Public PolicyEquitable Principles
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,722 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