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

Pamela R. v. James N.

This case addresses the appropriate burden of proof in Family Court contempt proceedings concerning custody order violations, specifically contrasting criminal and civil contempt. The court examined whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal contempt, as established by Rubackin v Rubackin, and clear and convincing evidence for civil contempt. The father was accused of willfully violating a sole custody order by altering his daughter's prescribed medication regimen. The court found that the mother failed to prove criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence, as the father's actions were deemed justified due to his medical expertise and good faith belief regarding his daughter's well-being. Consequently, the mother's petition was dismissed.

Family CourtContempt ProceedingCustody OrderBurden of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptReasonable DoubtClear and Convincing EvidenceJudicial AuthorityParental Rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Department of Social Services v. Oscar C.

This case examines whether the Family Court properly utilized a dual burden of proof in a child neglect proceeding involving two Indian children. The Family Court applied the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard during the fact-finding phase and the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard during the dispositional phase. The appellant father argued that the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) preempted New York State law, requiring the 'clear and convincing' standard for both phases. The court concluded that the ICWA does not preempt State law when the State law offers a higher standard of protection, and that New York's dual burden of proof can be harmonized with the ICWA's provisions. The court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no conflict with federal law regarding the application of these standards.

Indian Child Welfare ActChild Neglect ProceedingDual Burden of ProofPreemption DoctrineFamily Court JurisdictionFact-Finding StandardDispositional StandardParental RightsIndigenous ChildrenAlaska Native Village
References
13
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Media Group, LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC

Plaintiff Astra Media Group, LLC sued defendants Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC and the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) alleging federal and state antitrust violations, discrimination, and tortious interference. Astra claimed Clear Channel conspired with the TLC to ban its four-sided taxi rooftop advertising, engaged in predatory pricing, filed baseless lawsuits, and destroyed property. The court granted Clear Channel's motion to dismiss the antitrust and tortious interference claims, citing lack of plausible allegations and immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The TLC's motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claim was also granted due to Astra's failure to provide specific supporting facts. The court consequently dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Antitrust LawSherman ActDonnelly ActTortious InterferencePredatory PricingNoerr-Pennington DoctrineEqual Protection ClauseMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentTaxi Advertising Regulation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tannenbaum v. Hofbauer

The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of their complaint, which sought damages for an alleged assault and battery perpetrated by unidentified men acting under the direction of Powers, a business agent of the defendant union during a strike. The plaintiff's evidence indicated the tortious act was committed by a union agent in furtherance of the strike. However, there was no evidence of official union authorization for the act, nor was the agent's unlawful activity sufficiently notorious or prolonged to infer knowledge and acquiescence from the union membership. Citing established precedent, the court reiterated that to hold a voluntary, unincorporated association liable, facts must prove all members are liable, either through a public act of the association or member-approved acts of its agents. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to bind the entire union membership, requiring clear and convincing evidence to identify the union with the individual acts. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

Assault and BatteryUnion LiabilityAgency LawVoluntary Unincorporated AssociationMembership LiabilityStrike ActionTortious ActDismissal of ComplaintMotion PracticeEvidence Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Katrina W.

This child protective proceeding concerns Katrina W., deemed an "abused child" by the Family Court due to her mother's failure to protect her from sexual abuse by an older brother. The appellant mother challenged the constitutionality of the preponderance of the evidence standard in Family Court Act article 10 abuse proceedings, arguing for a higher standard like clear and convincing evidence. The court rejected this argument, affirming that the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process, aligning with precedents for neglect proceedings. The decision emphasized the State's compelling parens patriae interest in child welfare during abuse cases, which outweighs parental interests in this context, where placement is temporary, not an irrevocable termination of parental rights. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence, including expert medical testimony and Katrina's corroborated statements, to uphold the finding of abuse and affirmed the dispositional order placing Katrina with the agency for one year.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseDue ProcessStandard of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court Act Article 10Parental RightsParens PatriaeChild Protective ProceedingCorroboration
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Brandon D.

This case involves an appeal regarding a proceeding to terminate parental rights. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Family Court's decision, which determined that the respondent was unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children due to mental illness. This finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony and documentary evidence from three psychiatrists and a social worker, with no countervailing evidence presented by the respondent. The appellate court also concluded that a separate dispositional hearing was not necessary in this instance.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild WelfareFamily LawAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceSocial Services LawInadequate Parental CarePsychiatric EvaluationWayne County Family Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pesca v. Board of Trustees

Plaintiff Carmine Pesca, a construction worker, sought to overturn a prior judgment (*Pesca I*) that denied his union disability benefits. He alleged that the prior judgment was obtained through fraud and that new evidence regarding miscredited work hours in 1982 had emerged. The defendant, the Mason Tenders' District Council Pension Fund, filed for summary judgment. The court found that Pesca had not demonstrated due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence before *Pesca I* concluded, nor did he provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Pesca's complaint.

Summary JudgmentRule 60(b)Fraud on the CourtNewly Discovered EvidenceERISADisability BenefitsPension Fund LitigationDue DiligencePrior JudgmentMotion to Set Aside Judgment
References
25
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22200 [75 Misc 3d 60]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2022

People v. Washington (Michael)

In People v Washington, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, reversed Michael Washington's conviction for attempted assault and harassment. The Criminal Court had allowed the prosecution to introduce the complainant's prior statements to the police and a domestic incident report, despite the complainant not testifying, which the Appellate Term ruled violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the People failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Washington caused the witness's unavailability, as required after a Sirois hearing. As the complainant's out-of-court statements were the sole evidence against Washington, the error was not harmless, leading to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument. Presiding Judge Aliotta dissented, contending that the People had provided sufficient evidence of defendant's unlawful influence.

Criminal ProcedureConfrontation ClauseHearsay EvidenceWitness TamperingDomestic Violence CasesAppellate ReversalSixth AmendmentEvidentiary ErrorSirois HearingAttempted Assault
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Francis

This case concerns a bench trial to determine if three non-marital children (J, D, and S) are entitled to inherit from the decedent under EPTL 4-1.2 (a) (2) (C). The children's mother, the petitioner, presented extensive evidence of the decedent's relationship with her and the children, including cohabitation, financial support, and introductions to his family. The respondent, the decedent's spouse, contested this claim, asserting the decedent denied fathering other children and consistently resided with her. The court, finding the petitioner's evidence clear and convincing, concluded that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity of the children, citing photographic evidence, rental agreements, tax returns, and testimony from both families. Consequently, the court ruled that J, D, and S are entitled to inherit from the decedent as his non-marital children.

Inheritance LawNon-marital ChildrenPaternityEPTL 4-1.2Clear and Convincing EvidenceOpen and Notorious AcknowledgmentEstate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFamily LawDistributees
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,930 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