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

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz Park Avenue Corp. v. Jagger

Judge Ciparick issues a concurring opinion in an ejectment action, agreeing with the outcome of summary judgment against a tenant but dissenting from the majority's legal interpretation regarding the compatibility of B-1/B-2 visas and primary residency under New York's rent stabilization laws. Ciparick argues that while visa status can be a factor, it should not automatically disqualify a tenant from primary residency. The judge found that summary judgment was appropriately granted due to the tenant's unrebutted sporadic occupancy, lack of evidence of New York residency, and admissions of non-occupancy, establishing a prima facie case of non-primary residence, aligning with the rent stabilization law's goal of returning underutilized apartments to the market.

Rent StabilizationPrimary ResidenceB-2 VisaEjectment ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Rent LawImmigration StatusTenant OccupancyHousing LawConcurring Opinion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Nieves-Andino

This is a concurring opinion by Judge Jones regarding an Appellate Division order affirming a defendant's conviction. Judge Jones agrees that the conviction should be affirmed and that the victim's (Millares) pedigree information was nontestimonial. However, he argues that Millares's statements identifying the defendant and providing his address and past conduct were testimonial under Crawford v Washington and Davis v Washington. This is because the primary purpose of Officer Doyle's interrogation, after the immediate emergency had passed, was to investigate past criminal conduct. Despite this Confrontation Clause violation, Judge Jones concludes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the detailed corroborating testimony of witness O'Carroll and other evidence presented at trial.

Confrontation ClauseTestimonial StatementsNontestimonial StatementsOngoing Emergency DoctrineHarmless ErrorSixth AmendmentCriminal ProsecutionAppellate ReviewWitness InterrogationPolice Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvia v. Teman Electrical Contracting, Inc.

Justice S. Miller issues a dissenting and concurring opinion regarding the dismissal of plaintiffs' Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The dissent argues for granting summary judgment on liability against Parker East and Parker, asserting that Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) mandates protection for 'every hazardous opening,' and that plaintiff Humberto Alvia's injuries resulted from a violation of this unambiguous command. The opinion distinguishes the present case from prior rulings like D’Egidio and Piccuillo by noting the larger size and nature of the opening in question. While advocating for absolute liability against the owner and general contractor under Labor Law § 241 (6), the dissent concurs that the motion should be denied against the electrical subcontractor, Teman, due to unresolved factual questions regarding its control and authority over the work.

Labor LawHazardous OpeningSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndustrial CodeUnguarded OpeningAppellate DecisionSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseConstruction Site Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

United States v. Nesbeth

Chevelle Nesbeth was convicted by a jury for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Senior District Judge Block rendered a non-incarceratory sentence of one-year probation, with special conditions including six months' home confinement and 100 hours of community service. The judge wrote this opinion to emphasize the importance of considering the numerous statutory and regulatory collateral consequences facing Nesbeth as a convicted felon, such as restrictions on employment, housing, and voting. These consequences were extensively balanced against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine a just punishment. The opinion advocates for legal counsel and the Probation Department to proactively address collateral consequences in all future pre-sentence reports and sentencing proceedings.

Collateral ConsequencesSentencing ReformCriminal JusticeProbationary SentenceDrug Trafficking OffensesFelony ConvictionJudicial DiscretionFederal Sentencing GuidelinesRehabilitationRecidivism
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perduyn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The petitioner, represented by his Union, was found guilty of serious misconduct after a hearing before a single arbitrator, despite a collective bargaining agreement provision for three. The Supreme Court dismissed his CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, ruling that the petitioner lacked standing to assert an individual claim against the employer and his sole remedy was a plenary action against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. A concurring opinion by Asch, J., discusses the evolution of contract law, highlighting the shift from individual to collective bargaining and raising questions about judicial checks on power abuse by associations regarding their members. The opinion also notes the admission of extensive evidence concerning a 'Black Hand' terror campaign during the arbitration hearing.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Individual ClaimStandingDuty of Fair RepresentationContract LawUnion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,970 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