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

Incorporated Village of Valley Stream v. State of New York Public Service Commission

The Village of Valley Stream initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Public Service Commission's (PSC) determination upholding Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) decision to terminate street lighting service. LILCO, citing abnormal expenditures due to cable failure and wear and tear, refused to replace the system and ceased service. The PSC interpreted LILCO's tariff to allow termination under such circumstances, a decision the court found rational. The court balanced LILCO's significant economic loss against minimal public harm, considering viable alternatives for the village and new legal requirements for public bids and prevailing wages, ultimately confirming the PSC's determination and dismissing the village's petition.

Street Lighting ServiceUtility TerminationPublic Service Commission ReviewTariff InterpretationAbnormal ExpenditureEconomic LossPublic InterestCPLR Article 78Utility RegulationCable Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. v. State of New York Office of Children and Family Services

Petitioners Patricia R. and John R. were 'indicated' for child maltreatment after their children had continued contact with an uncle who had sexually abused their oldest daughter. Despite being explicitly instructed by a child protective services caseworker to prevent any contact, the children reported seeing and greeting the uncle. Patricia R. even sent the youngest child to the uncle's apartment. The petitioners challenged this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, requesting the report be amended to unfounded. However, the court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger due to the petitioners' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseSexual AbuseParental NeglectFailure to SuperviseCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFamily LawChild Protection
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05744 [174 AD3d 1206]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The case involves Jarred Sansky, a probationary employee, terminated from his position as Cadet Leader 1 by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Petitioners, including Sansky and the Civil Service Employees Association, challenged the termination under CPLR article 78, arguing Sansky had completed his probationary term and was dismissed in bad faith or retaliation for reporting neglect. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding Sansky was still probationary and petitioners failed to prove bad faith or retaliation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sansky's temporary service in a higher position did not automatically count towards his probationary period and that allegations of bad faith or retaliation were unsupported by evidence. Therefore, Sansky, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to a pretermination hearing.

probationary employmentterminationCPLR article 78bad faith dismissalretaliationcivil service lawtemporary appointmentprovisional appointmentNew York State Office of Children and Family ServicesCadet Leader
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Evelyn Melo, an employee of Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. (JBFCS), filed a tort action after sustaining personal injuries from an attack, rape, and robbery at her workplace. JBFCS moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy for such injuries. Melo cross-moved, arguing that her injuries were not "accidental workplace injuries" and therefore fell outside the purview of workers' compensation. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law, specifically §§ 10, 11, and 21, and relevant case law regarding "accidental injury" and its exceptions. The court determined that Melo was indeed an employee, the incident occurred during her employment, and she failed to demonstrate that the Workers' Compensation Law did not preempt her tort action. The court granted JBFCS's motion to dismiss and denied Melo's cross-motion, also awarding costs to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryWorkplace AssaultRape and RobberyMotion to DismissCPLRAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentEmployer Liability
References
19
Case No. 99 Civ. 3594
Regular Panel Decision

Finch ex rel. Moe v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Plaintiffs Barbara Finch, Carol Jordan, and Barbara Ortiz allege violations of their Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to extensive delays in administrative hearings concerning 'indicated' reports of child abuse/maltreatment in New York's Statewide Central Register (SCR). They seek money damages and injunctive relief against the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), Commissioner John A. Johnson, and Director Dave R. Peters. The court dismissed claims against OCFS and for money damages against individual defendants due to Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity, respectively. However, claims for prospective injunctive relief against the individual defendants were allowed to proceed. The court determined that delays of 12-23 months in administrative hearings could constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of a fundamental liberty interest, but found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity for damages as this specific violation was not clearly established law. The State defendants' motion to strike references to race and ethnicity was granted.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentChild Abuse MaltreatmentAdministrative HearingsStatewide Central Register (SCR)New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)Injunctive ReliefQualified ImmunityEleventh AmendmentLiberty Interest
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York

This negligence action was brought by Anastasia Joliet Renee Brown, a minor represented by her adoptive mother, against Harlem Dowling-Westside Center for Children and Family Services (HDWC), Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), and the City of New York. Plaintiff alleged gross negligence in returning her to her abusive birth mother after foster care, despite a prior Family Court order to terminate parental rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming statutory and common-law immunity. The court denied HDWC's motion as untimely and unsupported by sufficient evidence. The City's motion was also denied, as the court found material issues of fact regarding gross negligence and deemed the immunity claims inapplicable or unproven.

Child NegligenceFoster CareChild AbuseSummary JudgmentGovernment ImmunitySocial Services LawCPLRGross NegligenceMinisterial ActsDiscretionary Acts
References
10
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02348
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Matter of Drey L. (Katrina M.)

This case involves an appeal by Katrina M. from a Family Court order that adjudicated her children to be permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services filed the petition in March 2021, after the children were removed from respondent's care in November 2017. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the Department of Social Services made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and that respondent failed to adequately plan for the children's future. The court noted respondent's inconsistent engagement with services, missed visits, and inadequate proposed living arrangements for her children. Ultimately, the Appellate Division concluded that terminating parental rights, rather than issuing a suspended judgment, was in the children's best interests given the duration of their time in care and respondent's limited actions toward reunification.

Parental rights terminationPermanent neglectDiligent effortsFamily Court appealChild welfareSubstance abuseMental healthParental reunificationBest interests of childSocial Services Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. v. Niagara County Department of Social Services

Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination by the Niagara County Department of Social Services (DSS) to remove a foster child, Georgina, from their home. Georgina and her half-brother Ralph had been placed with petitioners as infants. Initially, DSS allowed petitioners to adopt Georgina but planned to place Ralph elsewhere. After an evaluation, DSS reversed its decision, determining both children should be adopted by Patricia F., leading to Georgina's removal. The court found DSS's determination to be arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing Georgina's strong attachment to petitioners as her primary caregivers. The determination to remove Georgina was annulled, the amended petition granted, and the matter remitted to DSS for further proceedings.

Foster CareChild WelfareAdoptionBest Interests of the ChildSibling PlacementAttachment TheoryAdministrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceFamily Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of Mariah Corrigan v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services

This case addresses whether a statutory procedure for early expungement of child abuse reports applies when parents are assigned to the Family Assessment Response (FAR) track under Social Services Law § 427-a, rather than undergoing a formal investigation. Petitioners sought to expunge records related to an educational neglect report handled via the FAR track, arguing for parity with the traditional investigative track which allows for early expungement of unfounded reports. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both rejected this, holding that the legislature intentionally omitted such a provision in the FAR statute to maintain its non-adversarial, service-oriented approach. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that statutory construction dictates that a legislative omission is intentional and that resolving policy concerns is a task for the legislature. The court further noted that petitioners' constitutional claim was not properly preserved for review.

Child abuseEducational neglectFamily Assessment Response (FAR)Social Services LawStatutory constructionLegislative intentExpungement of recordsAdministrative reviewAppellate practiceCPLR Article 78
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,112 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