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

Braswell v. Braswell

The case concerns an appeal by a father from a Family Court order that modified his visitation schedule with his son. The mother had initiated the modification proceeding, citing the child's entry into kindergarten and the disruptive nature of the existing schedule, as well as the child's diagnosis of acute stress disorder linked to visits with his father. The Family Court denied the father's adjournment request and, in his absence, reduced his visitation to three visits annually. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the adjournment or the modification of the visitation, as a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests were demonstrated.

Child visitationVisitation modificationFamily Court ActAppellate reviewAdjournment denialChild custodyBest interests of childAcute stress disorderParenting timeChild welfare
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2014

Shoshanah B. v. Lela G.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child therapy and visitation. The original order, entered on November 5, 2014, permitted the respondent (custodial parent) to enroll the parties' child in therapy and temporarily suspended the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The Appellate Division modified the order, affirming the respondent's right to enroll the child in therapy but vacating the suspension of the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The court found that while the respondent acted appropriately in seeking therapy for the child due to emotional distress, the Family Court erred in modifying the visitation schedule without a proper hearing, as there was no showing of an immediate emergency. The ruling underscores the requirement for a hearing when modifying custody or visitation orders, even on a temporary basis.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsChild TherapyParental RightsCustody Agreement ModificationJudicial Hearing OfficerAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEmergency Order
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1993

Manchester v. Whitbeck

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Fulton County, entered December 15, 1993, which granted the respondent's application for a modification of a prior custody and visitation order, awarding sole custody to the respondent. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's findings, which alleged the petitioner's failure to provide for the child's minimal needs and demonstrated little parenting understanding. However, the appellate court found no support in the record for these findings, noting that some evidence was misinterpreted or explained by mediated agreements. It concluded that a change in custody was not warranted, as there was no indication it would substantially enhance the child’s welfare and the custodial parent was not shown to be unfit. Consequently, the order was modified by reversing the award of sole custody to the respondent and instead awarding sole custody to the petitioner, with liberal visitation to the respondent, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court to set an appropriate visitation schedule.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody ModificationBest Interest of the ChildParental FitnessJoint CustodyAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsFamily Court ActJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2017

Matter of Condon v. Verdile

This case involves an appeal concerning child visitation rights between a father and maternal grandparents. The maternal grandparents and children appealed a Family Court order that granted the father's petition to eliminate the grandparents' visitation and denied the grandparents' petition to establish a visitation schedule. The Appellate Division found that while the deteriorating relationship between the father and grandparents constituted a change in circumstances, the Family Court's determination that resuming visitation was contrary to the children's best interests lacked a sound basis. Evidence showed the children had a close relationship with their grandparents and desired to resume visitation, and a social worker's opinion against visitation was deemed improvidently relied upon due to an incomplete assessment. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order, denied the father's petition, granted the maternal grandparents' petition, and remitted the matter for the establishment of an appropriate visitation schedule.

Custody modificationChild visitationGrandparent visitation rightsBest interests of the childChange in circumstancesFamily Court order appealAppellate DivisionParent-grandparent antagonismTherapist testimonyDutchess County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Effner v. Scott

This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County, which partially granted a petitioner's application for modification of a prior visitation order concerning the parties' child. The unwed parties had a child in 1990, separated in 1991, and an order in March 1992 awarded custody to the petitioner with liberal visitation for the respondent father. Petitioner sought to limit weekday visitation, citing concerns from a mental health clinical evaluation. The court modified visitation, reducing the actual number of visitation days and clarifying the schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the mental health evaluation did not warrant further restriction and that the structured visitation schedule was supported by the record.

Family LawChild VisitationModification OrderBest Interest of ChildFamily Court ActMental Health EvaluationAppellate ReviewDelaware CountyCustody DisputeStructured Visitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucciarone v. Progressive Insurance

Plaintiffs, chiropractors, initiated a breach of contract action against defendants, a group of insurance companies. They sought additional compensation for specific chiropractic treatments (diathermy, ultrasound, traction) administered during office and home visits, arguing these were not explicitly covered by no-fault insurance fee schedules. Plaintiffs contended they should receive prevailing fees for these nonscheduled discrete treatments, despite being paid the scheduled fees for visits. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that the chiropractic fee schedule explicitly includes "any and all chiropractic treatment and modalities" within the flat fees for home and office visits, aligning with the legislative intent of Insurance Law § 5108.

No-Fault InsuranceAutomobile Liability InsuranceChiropractic ServicesMedical Fee ScheduleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationRegulatory InterpretationProfessional Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1993

Bender v. Robinson

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 22, 1993. The order reinstated portions of a previous joint custody order and set a visitation schedule between the mother and child. The mother contended she was denied the opportunity to be heard on custody and visitation issues. The appellate court found that the Family Court had thoroughly familiarized itself with the case through numerous conferences, hearings, psychological evaluations, and consultations with a Law Guardian and caseworker, providing ample opportunity for the mother to present her position. The mother's challenge to the visitation schedule was also rejected, as it provided stability and frequent visitation in the child's best interests. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no improvident exercise of discretion.

CustodyVisitationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJoint CustodyChild's Best InterestsJudicial DiscretionDue ProcessPsychological EvaluationLaw Guardian
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Ciccone v. Ciccone

In a visitation proceeding, the father appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which granted the mother’s petition for supervised visitation with their daughter. The Family Court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that despite the mother's history of mental health problems and a past admission of physically abusing an adult son, her condition had significantly improved through voluntary mental health treatment and she showed remorse. The decision to award monthly supervised visits was supported by a court-appointed forensic psychologist, a social worker who supervised visits, and the attorney for the child. The Family Court also considered a finding of a family offense against the mother but determined it did not establish that supervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare, especially since experts reported the mother acted appropriately with the child during visits.

Visitation rightsFamily lawChild custodyParental rightsSupervised visitationMental healthParental fitnessBest interest of the childAppellate reviewEvidentiary basis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1998

Millett v. Millett

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement for two sons. Initially, the parents had joint custody, but the petitioner sought to limit the respondent's visitation due to alleged mental abuse of the children. The Family Court awarded sole custody to the petitioner and mandated that the respondent's visitation be arranged by the children's therapist. On appeal, the court affirmed the termination of joint custody and the requirement for supervised visitation. However, it found that delegating the authority to determine the specifics of supervised visitation to a therapist was an improper delegation of judicial power. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Family Court of Warren County for further proceedings to establish the nature and frequency of the supervised contacts between the respondent and the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsChild mental healthParental fitnessFamily CourtModification of orderAppellate reviewRemandSupervised visitationDelegation of judicial authority
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,025 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