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

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1996

Prior v. County of Saratoga

Plaintiff commenced an action alleging excessive force during his arrest by Shawn Nolan and Keith Clinton of the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, claiming battery and Federal civil rights violations under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. A jury found Nolan used excessive force but did not intentionally violate plaintiff's rights, awarding $5,000 for pain and suffering and $429.66 for medical expenses. Plaintiff then moved for counsel fees as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988, and Supreme Court awarded $7,500. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988 because his Federal constitutional claims met the two-pronged Gibbs test, and the reduction of the requested counsel fee was an appropriate exercise of discretion given the limited success on the nonconstitutional issue.

Excessive ForceCivil Rights4th Amendment5th Amendment14th AmendmentBatteryCounsel FeesPrevailing PartyFederal ClaimsState Claims
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Jones

This case involves appeals from two Family Court orders concerning a visitation violation and an award of counsel fees. The father initiated a proceeding alleging the mother violated a modified visitation order by not facilitating therapeutic visitation for their daughter and not ensuring she received separate counseling regarding an alleged sexual contact incident. The Family Court found the mother willfully violated the order and partially granted the father's motion for counsel fees, denying the mother's request to call the daughter as a witness or hold a Lincoln hearing. The appellate court affirmed both orders, concluding that the evidence supported the finding of a willful violation and that the Family Court properly exercised its discretion regarding the daughter's testimony and the counsel fee award. The mother failed to follow specific instructions from the therapist regarding visitation and limited the scope of the daughter's individual therapy.

Child visitationCustody order violationTherapeutic visitationCounsel feesWillful violationFamily Court ActJudiciary LawAppellate reviewParental cooperationChild therapy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. Donnelly

Jesus Torres filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his New York State Supreme Court conviction for two counts of first-degree robbery, stemming from incidents on November 6, 1997, in Buffalo. He alleged a Brady violation due to delayed disclosure of an exculpatory photographic array, ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding witness cross-examination and a stipulation, and an erroneous denial of his request for substitute counsel. The court denied the petition, finding no constitutional violations. It determined that counsel had a meaningful opportunity to use the Brady material, that counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective despite errors, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying substitution of counsel.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationphotographic arraywitness identificationappellate reviewcriminal proceduredue processSixth Amendmentfederal review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2007

Monzon v. Sam Bernard Construction Inc.

Claimant injured his foot in January 2004 and testified in February 2005 that he was unable to work since the accident. The employer requested an adjournment to present surveillance video allegedly showing claimant working, but the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) precluded the video due to non-disclosure before testimony. After claimant's counsel informed the WCB that claimant had returned to work, the Board rescinded payments made post-February 2005 hearing. The WCLJ found a compensable 30% loss of use of the foot. The employer sought review, alleging claimant made material misrepresentations violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board found no violation, attributing inconsistencies to translation issues and noting statements made after counsel advised of return to work were not for obtaining benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported no violation of § 114-a.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationsSurveillance Videotape PreclusionReturn to WorkTranslation InconsistenciesBenefit ForfeitureAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionLoss of UseCompensable Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Jones

Petitioner appeals an order from the Family Court of Otsego County, entered March 12, 1997, which granted respondent physical custody of their child, found petitioner in willful violation of a prior visitation order, sentenced her to 10 days in jail, and dismissed her family offense petition alleging child sexual abuse. Petitioner argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming her assigned attorney sent a substitute, Kelly Eckmair, without notice on the second day of the hearing, and Eckmair failed to call critical witnesses. The Appellate Division disagreed, finding Eckmair was well-prepared, conducted adequate examinations and objections, and that petitioner received reasonably competent and meaningful representation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily OffenseSexual Abuse AllegationsIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActLegal RepresentationProcedural Due ProcessWitness Testimony
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,451 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