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 H. R.

The Law Guardian for the infant H. R. filed an application seeking an order to place H. R. in the certified foster home of Mr. and Mrs. S., where his three half-siblings already reside. H. R. was born drug-positive and with syphilis, requiring special care. The Rockland County Department of Social Services opposed the placement, citing New York State Department of Social Services regulations regarding household capacity and the special needs of the children, arguing it would jeopardize the care of the other eight children in the S. home. The court, citing New York Family Court Act § 1027-a, emphasized the strong state policy of keeping siblings together and the presumption that such placement is in the child's best interests. The court found the Department's opposition to be based on speculation rather than concrete evidence of harm, and therefore insufficient to overcome the legal presumption. Consequently, the court granted the application, directing the Commissioner of Social Services to place infant H. R. with the S. foster family, with an expectation of continued monitoring by the Commissioner.

Child welfaresibling placementfoster carebest interests of the childFamily Court ActDepartment of Social Servicesdrug addictionhandicapped childrenjudicial discretionNew York law
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Breanna R.

The Family Court, Erie County, dismissed a petition alleging that the respondent father sexually abused his three children. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The Appellate Division found that the out-of-court statements of the two oldest children describing incidents of sexual abuse by the father were sufficiently corroborated by validation testimony from a licensed psychologist, testimony from a CPS caseworker, age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual matters by the children, cross-corroborating accounts, and consistent behaviors. Consequently, Breanna R. and Giovanna R. were found to be abused children, and Giulianna R. was found to be a neglected child. The matter was remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge.

child abusechild neglectsexual abuseFamily Court Actcorroborationout-of-court statementsvalidation testimonypsychological testingappellate reviewreversal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1981

J. A. R. Management Corp. v. Sweeney

J. A. R. Management Corp. sold an apartment building to J. R. R. Realty Co., allegedly violating a collective bargaining agreement with Local 32B-32J S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO by failing to give notice and ensure the buyer adopted the agreement. The union initiated arbitration against both J. A. R. and J. R. R. and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against J. R. R. Petitioners J. A. R. and J. R. R. sought to vacate the arbitration notice, arguing NLRB pre-emption. The Supreme Court granted their motion. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the notice to arbitrate was vacated only for J. R. R. Realty Co., while the motion against J. A. R. Management Corp. was denied. Arbitration against J. A. R. is stayed pending the NLRB's resolution of claims against J. R. R., after which arbitration may proceed for any unresolved disputes arising from the collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRB Pre-emptionVacate Notice to ArbitrateEmployer-Union DisputeSale of BusinessSuccessor EmployerUnfair Labor PracticesStay of ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.S. ex rel. R.R. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff M.S., individually and on behalf of her autistic son R.R., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. sought tuition reimbursement for R.R.’s unilateral private school placement after challenging the adequacy of the Department’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) initially sided with M.S., but a State Review Officer (SRO) reversed this decision, finding the IEP compliant with IDEA. In the federal district court, M.S. appealed the SRO's decision. The court, affording due deference to the SRO's expertise, upheld the SRO's finding that the Department’s IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate, thereby denying M.S.'s motion for summary judgment and granting the Department's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationAutismTuition ReimbursementIndividualized Education ProgramDue ProcessAdministrative AppealSummary JudgmentEducational LawDisability Rights
References
30
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07281
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Kunnemeyer v. Long Is. R.R.

The plaintiff, Benjamin Kunnemeyer, appealed a judgment in favor of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) after a jury found the LIRR not negligent. The case stemmed from an accident where Kunnemeyer, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, was struck by an LIRR train at night while lying on the tracks. The primary legal issue was the applicability of the 'open run' defense, which generally allows a train engineer to assume a person on the tracks will move to safety. The Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled that this defense is not exclusively limited to daytime accidents but can apply if the train is readily observable. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to modify the jury instruction by omitting the phrase 'in broad daylight' and upheld the jury's finding that the LIRR was not negligent and the plaintiff was 100% at fault.

Rail accidentTrain operationOpen run defenseEngineer dutyNegligenceContributory negligenceJury instructionAppellate reviewVisibilityNighttime accident
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1990

In re Department of Social Services

This appeal concerns a child protective proceeding involving Maria R. and Anthony R., who were determined to be abused children and placed in the custody of the petitioner. The parents, Angelo R. and Mary R., appealed three Family Court orders: a denial of their application for the return of Anthony R., a fact-finding order of abuse, and a dispositional order placing the children. The appeals from the nondispositional and fact-finding orders were dismissed as academic or superseded. The appellate court affirmed the dispositional order entered July 10, 1990. The court found that the petitioner presented a prima facie case and that the findings of abuse were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, citing ample corroboration for the children's out-of-court statements through in camera testimony, expert validation, behavioral descriptions, and medical testimony.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseChild Protective ServicesCorroborationOut-of-Court StatementsIn Camera TestimonyExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceAppeal AffirmedFamily Court Act
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. CV-22-1926
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Golisano

Claimant Jason R. Golisano filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 alleging work-related injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury in September 2021. The employer and its carrier filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board on November 3, 2021, which was denied as untimely because it was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The carrier appealed, contending the Board should have exercised its discretion to accept the late application, citing a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWCLJ Decision30-Day LimitJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural IssueCOVID-19 Impact
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,894 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