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 the Custody of Rebecca B.

In a child custody proceeding, the court unanimously affirmed orders from the Family Court, New York County. These orders denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, granted the Law Guardian's motion to quash subpoenas, and denied the respondent's motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court found that Lawyers for Children, Inc., as the child's Law Guardian, had standing to seek a change of custody. It also ruled that communications between the child and the Law Guardian, as well as a hired social worker, were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, justifying the quashing of subpoenas. Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the psychiatrist was properly denied due to a lack of proof of bias.

Child CustodyLaw Guardian StandingSubpoena QuashalAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrinePsychiatrist DisqualificationFamily Court OrdersAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionLegal Representation of Child
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2003

Faunteleroy v. Mercado

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 2, 2003, which transferred custody of her child to the father after a hearing. The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing the significant weight given to a hearing court's findings in custody cases, provided they are supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court reiterated that the paramount consideration in awarding custody is the child's best interests, necessitating a modification only if the totality of circumstances warrants such a change. Factors considered include the quality of home environment, parental guidance, emotional and intellectual development, financial stability, parental fitness, and the duration of the current custody arrangement. The hearing court properly weighed these factors, observing both parents, hearing testimony from various individuals including a social worker, and interviewing the child in camera, ultimately awarding custody to the father.

Child CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildCustody ModificationParental FitnessJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary HearingQueens CountyFamily Court Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1992

George W. S. v. Donna S.

This case involves a child custody dispute between a father and mother regarding their daughter, born in 1984. The Family Court initially granted the parties joint custody, with the child residing with the father on the condition that he live within a five-mile radius of the former marital residence, and denied the mother's application for sole custody. Both parents have a history of psychological issues and demonstrated significant antagonism towards each other. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, finding that joint custody was inappropriate given the parents' inability to cooperate. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for complete psychological evaluations of the parties and the child, and for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

child custodyfamily lawjoint custodypsychological evaluationparental antagonismmental healthappellate reviewremittaldomestic relationsmarital residence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burr v. Emmett

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody. The petitioner (father) sought sole custody of his child, Jessie, after the respondent (mother), who had primary physical custody, announced plans to relocate to California. The Family Court granted the father's petition, concluding that the relocation was not in the child's best interest due to existing family ties and the speculative nature of the mother's career aspirations. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the relocating parent bears the burden of proving the move is in the child's best interest, considering various factors related to the child's welfare and parental relationships. The court found no error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence or its ultimate decision to transfer custody.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationParental RelocationBest Interest of the ChildFamily Law AppealVisitation RightsChange of CircumstancesBurden of ProofAppellate AffirmationLaw Guardian Role
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archer W. v. Commissioner of Social Services

This case involves an appeal by intervener foster parents from Family Court orders regarding child custody. The child, born in 1987, was placed with foster parents after the natural mother admitted to cocaine use. The natural father, Archer W., subsequently instituted custody proceedings and was granted a final custody order. The foster parents' motion to intervene and reargue custody was granted, but the Family Court again awarded custody to the natural father, finding no evidence of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the initial order and affirmed the final custody order from May 10, 1989. The court reiterated the principle that a natural parent has a superior claim to custody unless proved unfit or extraordinary circumstances exist, neither of which were demonstrated by the foster parents in this record.

Child CustodyFoster ParentsNatural FatherParental RightsUnfitnessAbandonmentNeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesBest Interests of ChildAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1982

Meirowitz v. Meirowitz

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appealed a Supreme Court judgment that awarded custody to the defendant husband, and denied her applications for maintenance and child support, and counsel fees. The appellate court reversed the judgment, granting custody of the infant issue to the wife, conditional on her continued residency in New York State. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to establish liberal visitation rights for the husband, set reasonable child support, and determine the wife's entitlement to maintenance and counsel fees. The court emphasized the child's best interests and the priority of initial custody arrangements, noting the wife had de facto custody since May 1981 and expert testimony supported her as the primary and more stable parent.

CustodyChild SupportMaintenanceCounsel FeesMatrimonial ActionAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildVisitation RightsParental FitnessDe Facto Custody
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chery v. Richardson

The father appealed the Family Court's denial of his petition to modify a 2004 custody order, seeking sole custody of his daughter. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that there was no sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification. The court noted that while the mother had prior parenting lapses, these issues, including hygiene and school attendance, had been ameliorated. The decision also considered the child's primary bond with her mother and half-siblings, the social worker's testimony, and the child's and her attorney's preference for custody to remain with the mother. Joint custody was deemed unfeasible due to the parents' inability to communicate.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildChange in CircumstancesParental FitnessChild PreferenceSibling RelationshipsFamily Court AppealAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura A. K. v. Timothy M.

The case involved appeals by a father concerning two Family Court orders related to child custody and visitation in Orange County. The first order, dated March 23, 1992, denied his petition for joint custody, while the second, dated February 25, 1993, limited his visitation rights to supervised Sunday afternoons. Additionally, a law guardian had cross-appealed the first order regarding the father's expanded visitation rights, but this cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed both Family Court orders, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount in custody proceedings. The court found that the parents' hostility and inability to cooperate, along with the mother being the primary caregiver, justified the sole custody award to the mother and the imposed visitation limitations.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewJoint CustodySole CustodyBest Interest of the ChildParental AntagonismSupervised VisitationDomestic Relations Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2012

Savoca v. Bellofatto

The father appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, which, without a hearing, awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of their child. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that a custody determination requires a full and comprehensive hearing based on the child's best interests. The Family Court erred by granting custody without a hearing, failing to examine the parties or obtain a forensic report, and not making specific findings of fact. Additionally, the father was deprived of his statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262(a)(v), as he was not advised of his right to an attorney or an adjournment to obtain new counsel. The matter was remitted for an evidentiary hearing on custody and visitation and a new determination.

Child CustodyCustody AppealsEvidentiary HearingRight to CounselFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildDue ProcessParental RightsJudicial DiscretionRemand
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,142 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