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 Tanya T.

This case concerns an appeal from an Albany County Family Court order which adjudicated four children, Tanya T., Tabitha T., Deion T., and Davonna T., as abused and/or neglected. The petition alleged that their father sexually molested Davonna in Deion’s presence. The Family Court issued orders of supervision and protection, mandating treatment for the father and prohibiting visitation. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court’s findings, determining that the children's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by behavioral changes, expert testimony, and consistent statements. The appellate court also upheld the denial of the father's visitation petition, concluding it was not in the children's best interests due to their fear and the father's history of violence.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual MolestationCorroboration of Child StatementsBehavioral ChangesExpert TestimonyDenial of VisitationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07300 [144 AD3d 761]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Mammone v. T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, a maintenance worker, fell from a ladder while attempting to change air filters at Garden City High School. He commenced an action against T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC, the construction manager, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing these causes of action against Nickel. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), his accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6), and Nickel lacked authority to supervise or control the plaintiff's work for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction Manager Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

Holliswood Care Center appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees against it in a guardianship proceeding for John T. The Supreme Court had initially found John T. competent but awarded fees to the petitioner, temporary guardian, and Mental Hygiene Legal Service, citing Holliswood's "reprehensible actions" in detaining Mr. T. Holliswood argued it was not given notice that the guardianship hearing would determine attorney's fees against it and was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence regarding its actions, which it claimed were based on safety concerns, not Mr. T.'s competency. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the Supreme Court improperly proceeded with the hearing and improvidently awarded attorneys' fees without proper notice and opportunity to be heard for Holliswood. Furthermore, the court found that the award of attorneys' fees against Holliswood was not authorized by Mental Hygiene Law article 81 nor justified under common law exceptions.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jack T.

This case involves an appeal concerning a mentally incompetent juvenile, Jack T., who faced multiple delinquency petitions. After being found incompetent and dangerous, Family Court Judges remanded him to the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Family Court could not commit a mentally retarded juvenile under CPL article 730 and required adherence to Mental Hygiene Law procedures. Following remand, a new hearing assessed Jack T.'s competency and need for involuntary care. Medical examiners concluded Jack T. remained incompetent to stand trial but was no longer a danger to himself or the community and did not require involuntary commitment. Judge Gibbell, presiding, highlighted a legislative oversight, concluding that without certification under the Mental Hygiene Law or the ability to use CPL 730.50, the Family Court's hands are tied, rendering it unable to act in such cases, and strongly urged legislative reform.

Juvenile DelinquencyMental IncompetenceFamily CourtHabeas CorpusCPL Article 730Mental Hygiene LawDue ProcessInvoluntary CommitmentLegislative ReformJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. J & T Properties

Henry Payne sustained injuries after falling from a building roof owned by J & T Properties, while employed by Kissane Water Conditioning, Inc. The initial Supreme Court order denied summary judgment motions by KWC and J & T, and partially granted plaintiffs' cross motion related to a Labor Law § 240 claim. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to KWC and J & T, and dismissing the complaint. The reversal was based on the finding that John and Timothy Kissane, partners of J & T, were also co-employees of Payne at KWC, establishing they were "in the same employ". This "same employ" relationship, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), bars the action against J & T, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Same Employ DoctrineThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall from RoofEmployer LiabilityCo-employee Immunity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1990

Abuso v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

Scott P. Abuso, an employee of Tee’s Recycling (a business formed by Mr. T Carting), was injured when he fell from and was hit by a garbage truck owned by Thomas Toscano, a partner in Mr. T Carting. After accepting Workers’ Compensation benefits through Tee’s Recycling, Abuso commenced an action against Joseph Russo (the truck driver and employee of Mr. T Carting) and the Toscano partners (doing business as Mr. T Carting) to recover damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) precluded recovery. The Supreme Court granted their motion, finding a special employment relationship existed between Abuso and Mr. T Carting. The appellate court affirmed the decision, agreeing that the evidence strongly supported the existence of a special employment relationship, making it a matter of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial Employment RelationshipExclusive Remedy ProvisionAppellate ReviewGarbage Truck AccidentPartnership LiabilityEmployer ImmunityTort LawJudicial Affirmation
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03787 [150 AD3d 910]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2017

Robinson v. National Grid Energy Management, LLC

Joseph Robinson, an electrical foreman, was injured after falling from an aerial bucket that malfunctioned while he was attempting to exit it. He and his wife sued National Grid Energy Management, LLC, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Omnipoint Communications, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the T-Mobile defendants on the Labor Law claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. It found that the bucket truck was not defective in providing fall protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense, while also concluding that Labor Law § 241 (6) did not apply as the work was not construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFall from HeightWorkplace AccidentAerial LiftTelecommunicationsNegligenceDuty to Provide Safety Devices
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gunner T.

This case concerns a child neglect petition against Maria T. regarding her son, Gunner T., who was placed in the care of the Clinton County Department of Social Services. The Department issued a notice to remove Gunner from his current foster home and place him with his great-uncle. The Attorney for the Child subsequently filed a motion to modify the existing order, advocating for Gunner to remain in his current foster home, citing his best interests. The court, presided over by Timothy J. Lawliss, ruled that it indeed possesses the legal authority under the Family Court Act to direct the placement of a child in a specific foster home. A separate hearing will be scheduled to determine if the requested relief aligns with Gunner's best interests.

Child NeglectFoster Care PlacementBest Interest of ChildFamily Court ActJudicial AuthoritySpecific Foster Home PlacementMotion to Modify OrderDepartment of Social ServicesAttorney for the ChildRelative Placement Preference
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2019

Franklin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mark Franklin, brought an action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Dyckman Realty Associates L.P. T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty then filed a third-party action against Energy Design Service Systems, LLC, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty's motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that issues of fact regarding the negligence of the defendants/third-party plaintiffs precluded summary judgment.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDangerous ConditionPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate Division First DepartmentLabor LawDuty to Keep Premises SafeNotice of Hazard
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,314 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