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 Princess C.

The case involves an appeal by a mother (respondent) from an Albany County Family Court order, which adjudicated her children to be permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The children, Princess C., Jyrese C., Lareisha D., Usavius D., and Autumn D., had been placed in the petitioner agency's custody due to the mother's failure to comply with conditions related to domestic violence, substance abuse, and unstable housing. The appellate court found that the petitioner agency exercised diligent efforts and that the mother failed to plan for the children's future. However, the court determined that the record was insufficient to conclude whether the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of each child. Consequently, the appellate court withheld its decision and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for a further dispositional hearing to be held within 90 days.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealDiligent EffortsBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolenceSubstance AbuseMental HealthUnstable Housing
References
18
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2015-2389 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

Thomas Dow, D.C., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County concerning a provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., moved for summary judgment, asserting that the amount sought by the plaintiff exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The District Court initially denied this motion, citing the defendant's failure to establish timely denial of claims. However, the Appellate Term reversed this decision, finding that the defendant had indeed timely mailed its denial forms and made a prima facie showing that the charges were in excess of the permitted fee schedule. The plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to counter the defendant's fee schedule defense. Consequently, the Appellate Term granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleTimely DenialAppellate TermSuffolk CountyInsurance LawAssigned BenefitsMedical ProviderPrima Facie Showing
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00226 [234 AD3d 774]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2025

Matter of Reid v. Williams

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, regarding related custody proceedings between Devon Reid (father) and Tibuananna D. Williams (mother). The Family Court granted the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of their twin sons, denied the mother's petition for sole legal custody, and directed that the mother's parental access be virtual and supervised, contingent upon the children's consent. Additionally, the mother's motion to hold the father in contempt for violating a prior order was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding its determinations regarding custody, parental access, and the denial of the contempt motion to have a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Child CustodyParental AccessFamily LawBest Interests of ChildrenContempt MotionAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentForensic EvaluationIn Camera InterviewSupervised Visitation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Forbes

Joseph Patrick Williams was injured in a 1984 fall at the Armbrusters' property where William Forbes was a general contractor. Williams, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued Forbes and the Armbrusters. Forbes, having impleaded Williams's employers David Rowe and D. Rowe Home Improvements, sought to amend his answer to include a Workers' Compensation Law defense and moved for summary judgment, which the court denied, although it granted the Armbrusters' cross-motion for summary judgment. Forbes appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion. Williams subsequently moved to dismiss Forbes's appeal as untimely. The court denied Williams's motion, ruling that the 30-day appeal period under CPLR 5513(a) only begins when the appellant is served notice of entry by the prevailing party, not by co-defendants like the Armbrusters. Consequently, Forbes's appeal was deemed timely.

AppealTimeliness of AppealService of NoticeCPLR 5513Workers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissNassau CountyAppellate DivisionPrevailing Party
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2016

Padilla v. Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C.

Raul Padilla, an ophthalmic technician, filed a collective action against his employer, Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C., and its owner, Dr. Sheldon Rabin, seeking retroactive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The central issue was whether Padilla was an 'exempt' salaried professional employee. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court found that Padilla did not meet the 'salary basis' test required for the FLSA's learned professional exemption, thus granting his motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim regarding this exemption. However, issues regarding the 'primary duty' test for the NYLL exemption, statute of limitations (willfulness), and liquidated damages were deemed triable issues for a jury.

FLSANYLLOvertime PayExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionSalary Basis TestPrimary Duty TestSummary JudgmentWillfulnessLiquidated Damages
References
28
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07383 [211 AD3d 1616]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Williams v. Kaleida Health

Dr. Aston B. Williams, a physician with medical staff privileges at Kaleida Health, sought a medical exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was subsequently denied. As a result of noncompliance, his privileges at Buffalo General Medical Center were suspended. Williams initiated legal action, requesting injunctive relief to prevent the revocation of his privileges. Kaleida Health moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court denied Williams's motion for an injunction and partially granted Kaleida Health's motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed this decision, determining that Public Health Law § 2801-c provides the exclusive remedy for alleged violations of § 2801-b (1), necessitating Williams to first pursue his claim before the Public Health and Health Planning Counsel.

COVID-19 vaccine mandatemedical staff privilegesinjunctionPublic Health Lawexclusive remedyPHHPCadministrative remediesdismissal without prejudicehealth care workersemployer-employee dispute
References
4
Case No. CA 13-01421
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAZELLA, JANICE v. BEALS, M.D., WILLIAM

This case involves a medical malpractice and wrongful death action where William Beals, M.D. (defendant) appealed an amended judgment awarding money damages to Janice Mazella, as administratrix of the estate of Joseph Mazella, deceased (plaintiff). The defendant sought to set aside the jury's verdict, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended judgment, finding a valid line of reasoning supported the jury's conclusion that the defendant deviated from the standard of care, proximately causing the decedent's injuries. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the admission of certain documents and the absence of a special verdict sheet. A dissenting opinion argued that intervening medical treatment severed the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the decedent's suicide, and that an evidentiary error regarding a consent agreement with the Office of Professional Medical Conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseNegligenceJury VerdictPosttrial MotionEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyConsent AgreementOffice of Professional Medical Conduct
References
26
Case No. 19094/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2012

5 Brothers, Inc. v. D.C.M. of New York, LLC

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, D.C.M. of New York, LLC (DCM), and a subcontractor, Vintage Flooring & Tile Inc. (Vintage), stemming from a construction project for a Best Buy store. The parties had an arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator awarded Vintage $76,539.13. DCM moved to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was irrational, against public policy, and indefinite, partly due to an alleged willfully exaggerated mechanic's lien by Vintage. Separately, Vintage moved to confirm the award. The court denied DCM's motion to vacate the award, finding that DCM failed to demonstrate the award was irrational or indefinite, and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Vintage. The court also denied DCM's motion for summary judgment on its lien exaggeration claim, stating that the arbitration implicitly rejected the exaggeration claim by finding Vintage's claim meritorious.

Arbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorMechanic's LienLien ExaggerationPublic PolicyIrrational AwardIndefinite Award
References
24
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,434 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