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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision

In re D.A.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order for child D.A., seeking placement with a maternal aunt, T.S., instead of the foster parent, D.L. Concurrently, D.L. and T.S. filed custody petitions. The court consolidated the matters, hearing extensive testimony regarding D.A.'s bond with D.L., Ms. S.'s inconsistent visitation, and the parents' neglect history. The court denied the County's modification application, finding no good cause and emphasizing D.A.'s strong bond and stability with D.L. It further directed the County to initiate proceedings for the termination of parental rights and dismissed both D.L.'s and T.S.'s custody petitions due to lack of standing.

Child NeglectFoster CareChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActDispositional Order ModificationBest Interests of the ChildPermanency PlanningKinship PlacementOnondaga County
References
6
Case No. NN-5890-05/06A
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Matter of D.A.

This case concerns D.A., a child born cocaine positive and adjudicated neglected, who has been in foster care with D.L. since birth. The Onondaga County Department of Social Services petitioned to modify a dispositional order, seeking to place D.A. with her maternal aunt, T.S., while D.L. and T.S. also filed separate custody petitions. The court denied the County's application to modify placement, concluding that removing D.A. from D.L., with whom she had formed a strong bond, would cause severe distress and was not in the child's best interests. Consequently, D.A.'s placement with the Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services in foster care with D.L. was continued. Furthermore, the court directed the County to file a petition for the termination of the biological parents' parental rights due to the child's extended time in foster care, and dismissed both custody petitions for lack of standing.

Child NeglectChild CustodyFoster CareParental Rights TerminationFamily Court Act Article 10Modification of Dispositional OrderBest Interests of ChildPermanency PlanningInterstate Compact on the Placement of ChildrenLaw Guardian
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,916 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