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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
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. 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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03119, 2021-00331, 2021-00339, B-10860-18, B-10861-18
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

Matter of Grace E. W.-F. (Zanovia W.)

In related proceedings, the mother appealed from two orders of fact-finding and disposition from the Family Court, Kings County, which had found she abandoned her children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship for adoption. The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, reversed these orders, holding that the petitioner, New York Foundling Hospital, failed to establish abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. The court highlighted the mother's consistent efforts, including visits, participation in family gatherings, purchases for the children, and communications with the caseworker, as evidence demonstrating an intent not to abandon her children. Consequently, the appellate court denied the petitions to terminate parental rights against the mother.

Parental RightsChild WelfareAbandonmentFamily CourtAppellate DivisionFoster CareSocial Services LawParental IntentGuardianshipAdoption
References
4
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 07261 [176 AD3d 824]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2019

Matter of Nieves v. Nieves

This case involves a child custody dispute between Nicole Nieves (mother) and Dennis Nieves (father), stemming from two related proceedings under Family Court Act article 6. The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which denied her petition for sole legal and physical custody and instead granted the father's petition. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that the record provided a sound and substantial basis for awarding the father sole custody. This was primarily due to extensive evidence demonstrating the mother and stepfather's deliberate actions to impede the father's parental access and alienate the child from him, conduct deemed inconsistent with the child's best interests. In contrast, the father proved capable of fostering a meaningful relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, offering a calmer and more stable environment for the child.

Child CustodyParental AlienationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSole Legal and Physical CustodyAppellate DivisionParental AccessForensic EvaluationCustody DeterminationInterference with Parental Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04212
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Town of Sand Lake

This case involves appeals by multiple petitioners challenging the Town of Sand Lake's enactment of Local Law No. 4 (2017), a new zoning ordinance. Petitioners, including mining companies and residents, sought to annul the law, arguing violations of SEQRA, inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, and preemption by MLRL. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, but the Appellate Division partially modified the judgment. The Appellate Division determined some petitioners had standing and annulled specific sections of Local Law No. 4 related to SEQRA powers and road use regulations. However, the court affirmed the remainder of the judgment, upholding the Town Board's SEQRA compliance, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the constitutionality of most of Local Law No. 4, including setback and reclamation bond requirements.

Zoning OrdinanceState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Mined Land Reclamation Law (MLRL)Standing (Legal)Comprehensive PlanDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78Local Law AnnulmentZoning Map InconsistencyLegislative Delegation
References
41
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 15,713 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