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. 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
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Law v. Cullen

Plaintiff Thomas Law, Jr. brought a Section 1983 action against New York City police officers and the City of New York, alleging a beating during his arrest. The City moved for summary judgment, contending no official policy caused the alleged constitutional deprivation. Plaintiff asserted the City ignored Officer Cullen's alleged propensity for excessive force, citing prior Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) complaints. However, the Court found these complaints unsubstantiated or irrelevant to excessive force prior to the incident, thus not establishing deliberate indifference or a causal policy. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment for the City, denied plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, and addressed several other procedural motions.

Section 1983Police misconductExcessive forceMunicipal liabilitySummary judgmentCivil rightsRule 11 sanctionsStatute of limitationsPendent jurisdictionCivilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB)
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dupont-Lauren v. Schneider (USA), Inc.

The court granted summary judgment to defendants Pfizer Inc. and Schneider (USA), Inc. in a Title VII sex discrimination case brought by former sales manager Randi Dupont-Lauren. Dupont-Lauren alleged failure to promote, unequal allocation of sales resources (stent sites and senior sales representatives), retaliation for protected activity, and sexual harassment. The court found her promotion claims time-barred for older events and unsubstantiated for recent ones due to lack of application or legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. The allocation of resources was not deemed an adverse employment action and was justified by objective criteria. Her retaliation claim failed as her complaints were vague and the alleged actions were not "ultimate employment decisions." The sexual harassment claim was rejected as the alleged remarks were not sexual and not reported to management.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting
References
146
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Morataya

The case involves a motion by property owners, Mr. Abdus Shahid and Ms. Halima Ansari, to vacate a March 13, 2016 order that appointed a Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law article 7-A administrator for their property at 284 Cooper Street, Brooklyn. They sought to renew their previous denied motion, alleging fraud by the tenants' attorney and the administrator, and claiming they now have a plan and financial stability to manage the property responsibly. The court, presided over by Judge Susan F. Avery, denied the motion. The court found the allegations of fraud unsubstantiated and the financial evidence submitted by the movants to be unauthenticated, incomplete, and inconsistent with the administrator's reports. Furthermore, the court took judicial notice of numerous outstanding housing violations in another property owned by the movants, 455 Tompkins Avenue, in a related case (Klenfner v Shahid). Applying the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court concluded it was not in the best interest of the building or the public to remove the 7-A administrator. The movants were granted leave to renew their motion if they successfully defend against the allegations in the Klenfner action.

Property ManagementLandlord-Tenant DisputeArticle 7-A AdministratorMotion to VacateFraud AllegationsFinancial StabilityHousing ViolationsJudicial NoticeDue ProcessProperty Ownership
References
31
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. SAC 0225494
Regular
Nov 09, 2007

Garry Seabrooks vs. BFI Medical Waste Systems, Risk Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Garry Seabrooks' petition for reconsideration and disqualification of the administrative law judge. Seabrooks alleged the judge engaged in improper conduct, including accepting bribes, but the Board found these claims unsupported and not credible. The Board adopted the judge's report and warned Seabrooks against further unsubstantiated allegations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeBribery AllegationsImproper ConductUnsupported AllegationsSanctionsPropria PersonaDefendant's Answer
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02287
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2025

Matter of Jahzara J.S. (Joshua S., Jr.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from Family Court, Bronx County, which found the respondent father neglected the subject child. The court determined that the finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The child's out-of-court statements alleging maltreatment were sufficiently corroborated by multiple disclosures to different individuals and by daycare workers' observations of significant changes in the child's demeanor and the exhibition of age-inappropriate behavior following an alleged incident. The Family Court's decision to credit the child's statements, despite minor inconsistencies, was upheld.

NeglectChild MaltreatmentOut-of-Court StatementsCorroborationPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewChild's DemeanorAge-Inappropriate BehaviorSocial Services
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Showing 1-10 of 13,417 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