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

Oddy v. Oddy

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County that modified a prior joint custody order, granting the petitioner (mother) sole physical custody of the child and specifying visitation for the respondent (father). The respondent appealed, arguing that the Family Court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a showing of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division found sufficient changed circumstances, citing a significant breakdown in communication between the father and the child, which negatively impacted his ability to meet her emotional needs, and the child's consistent strong desire to reside with her mother. The court considered the opinions of the child's social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both of whom supported the change in physical custody to enhance the child's emotional development. Consequently, the Family Court's order affirming the modification of the custody arrangement was affirmed.

Custody ModificationChild's Best InterestFamily Law AppealParental RightsPhysical CustodyJoint CustodyChanged CircumstancesChild PreferenceCommunication BreakdownMental Health Evaluation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01114 [214 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Tara DD. v. Seth CC.

This case concerns an appeal by Seth CC. (father) from a Family Court order that modified a prior visitation order, limiting the father's parenting time. The Family Court found a change in circumstances, citing the father's failure to properly supervise the child, evidence of a marihuana-growing operation in his home, and serious housekeeping deficiencies. These issues were deemed detrimental to the child's safety and well-being. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support both the finding of a change in circumstances and the determination that supervised or public place visitation was in the child's best interests.

Child custodyVisitation modificationParental supervisionChild's best interestsChange in circumstancesMarihuana cultivationHygienic concernsFamily Court appealAppellate reviewParental responsibility
References
23
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Wight v. Wight

This case involves an appeal regarding a plaintiff's motion to terminate his maintenance obligation to the defendant. The plaintiff sought termination due to early retirement, but the Supreme Court denied his motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, noting that the plaintiff's financial situation remained substantially more favorable than the defendant's, despite his retirement. The court found that the plaintiff's asserted change in circumstances was largely self-imposed through his early retirement, disinclination to seek new employment, and transfer of significant assets to his second wife. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a reduction in spousal maintenance.

MaintenanceAlimonyDivorceFinancial StatusEarly RetirementChange in CircumstancesSpousal SupportEquitable DistributionAppellate CourtAffirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Hartmann

Respondent appealed a Family Court order denying his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The original child support order, based on a 1994 stipulation, set varying weekly amounts depending on respondent's employment status. Respondent sought modification after his minor child began receiving $424 per month in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, arguing this constituted a change in circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, ruling that a child's SSDI benefits do not relieve a parent of their support duty. The court also noted that respondent's unemployment and receipt of benefits were contemplated in the original agreement, and insufficient evidence was provided for a financial change in circumstances.

Child SupportModificationSocial Security Disability InsuranceSSDI BenefitsChange in CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 4Appellate ReviewParental ObligationFinancial HardshipDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ18067229
Regular
Jul 10, 2025

RAY GUTIERREZ vs. CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC.; PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by CMAX COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE, INC. and PALOMAR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Defendants) regarding the continuation of home health care for applicant RAY GUTIERREZ. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show a change in the applicant's medical condition or circumstances to justify terminating previously authorized ongoing home health care, citing the principles established in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm. The decision also clarified the applicability of Labor Code section 5909 regarding the timeline for acting on reconsideration petitions, which was met by the Board. Commissioner Razo dissented, arguing Patterson should not apply due to the initial limited authorization and that a change in circumstances was evident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Utilization ReviewPatterson v. The Oaks FarmRequest for AuthorizationChange of CircumstancesHome Health CareMedical NecessityWCJ Report
References
15
Case No. 263 AD2d 686
Regular Panel Decision

Cicardi v. Cicardi

Petitioner Cicardi appealed two Family Court orders from Albany County, entered August 7, 1997, which dismissed his application for modification of a prior child support order and found him in arrears of approximately $19,600. The original 1994 order required petitioner to pay $150 per week. Cicardi sought to vacate arrearages and support obligations, claiming permanent disability due to a workers' compensation claim, but failed to provide competent medical evidence of a change in circumstances. The Family Court denied his requests for recusal of the judge and assignment of counsel, and precluded certain evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's orders, finding no error in the lower court's decisions regarding counsel, recusal, evidence preclusion, or the finding that Cicardi did not meet his burden of proving a substantial change in financial circumstances to warrant a downward modification, especially given his lack of effort to retrain.

Family LawChild SupportSupport ModificationArrearagesDisability ClaimChange in CircumstancesRecusal MotionAssignment of CounselPro Se LitigantEvidence Preclusion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Difilippo v. Edison

A claimant, residing in New York City and injured in the Bronx, sought to change the venue of his workers' compensation hearings from Manhattan to White Plains, Westchester County, citing convenience. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding that the claimant failed to provide sufficient justification or evidence for the change, as required by Board rules. Additionally, the Board assessed a $250 penalty against the claimant's attorney for seeking review without reasonable grounds under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision in its entirety, upholding both the denial of the venue change and the imposition of the attorney penalty.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAttorney SanctionAppellate ReviewAdministrative DecisionBurden of ProofProcedural RulesSufficiency of EvidenceNew York Labor LawJudicial Authority
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1996

Hallahan v. Ashland Chemical Co.

Plaintiff William Hallaban, diagnosed with granulocytic leukemia, commenced a products liability action, alleging workplace chemical exposure as the cause. During discovery, defendants sought to depose plaintiffs' expert witnesses, physician Stewart Silvers and chemist Harold Zeliger, citing "special circumstances" due to the alleged novelty of their causation theories and a change in Silvers' diagnosis from acute to chronic granulocytic leukemia. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion, finding no special circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, stating that the defendants' claims of "novel, unorthodox and unsupported" expert opinions did not constitute special circumstances for an oral examination of the experts before trial, especially as defendants had access to Silvers' medical records.

Products LiabilityExpert Witness DiscoverySpecial CircumstancesGranulocytic LeukemiaChemical ExposureMedical DiagnosisCPLR DiscoveryAppellate ReviewCausation TheoriesFrye Hearing Standard
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,326 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