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

Boyd v. Perales

The petitioner sought to expunge a 1976 child abuse report from the State Central Register, which alleged that her children were left bound and unsupervised, arguing it was irrelevant to her current child care employment. This challenge was initiated via a CPLR article 78 petition and transferred to the Appellate Division. An Administrative Law Judge had previously expunged two later reports but maintained the 1976 report. The court confirmed the respondents' determination, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the petitioner's serious lack of judgment in 1976 remained relevant to child care. Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's due process argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Child Abuse ReportState Central RegisterExpungementChild Care EmploymentAdministrative Law JudgeDue ProcessCPLR Article 78Social Services LawAppellate ReviewRehabilitation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catherine G. v. County of Essex

Petitioner sought leave to file a late notice of claim against Essex County and the Lake Placid Central School District, alleging their officials failed to report suspected child abuse by her 14-year-old son against her younger daughters to the statewide central register. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division had partially granted motions for late filing. However, the Court of Appeals ultimately denied the application to file a late notice of claim for Brittany, finding the claim patently meritless. The court reasoned that under the relevant Social Services Law and Family Court Act definitions, the son was not a 'person legally responsible' for his sisters' care, nor could he be the 'subject of the report' as he was a minor. Consequently, mandatory reporters had no obligation to report such incidents to the state hotline in this specific context.

Child Abuse ReportingSocial Services LawFamily Court ActMandatory ReportersLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e (5)Inter-sibling AbusePerson Legally ResponsibleStatewide Central RegisterStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1987

People v. Miller

This appeal concerns a judgment of conviction from Rochester City Court, entered August 26, 1987, convicting defendant-appellant Miller of a probation violation and sentencing him to one year in Monroe County Jail. Miller raised two issues: the failure to provide a written copy of probation orders at sentencing and sentencing without an updated presentence investigative report. The court found that while CPL 410.10 (1) mandates written probation orders at sentencing, the delayed provision by a probation officer before conditions took effect did not prejudice Miller's substantial rights, thus not warranting reversal. However, the court concluded that the failure to obtain an updated presentence investigative report before resentencing, nine months after the original report, constituted reversible error under CPL 390.20 (2) (b) based on established legal precedents. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and the matter remitted to Rochester City Court for an updated presentence investigation report and resentencing.

Probation violationSentencing procedureCriminal Procedure LawWritten probation ordersPresentence investigation reportRight of allocutionAppellate reviewConviction reversalRemand for resentencingMisdemeanor sentencing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

The case addresses the arbitrability of a dispute between the Unified Court System (petitioner) and a respondent union. The petitioner had designated three newly hired Supervising Court Attorneys as "managerial/confidential," asserting that this classification falls under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as per the Taylor Law and not within the scope of arbitration. Conversely, the respondent union argued that the matter should be arbitrated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) recognition clause and general arbitration provisions. The court applied a two-step analysis to assess arbitrability, concluding that there were no statutory or public policy prohibitions preventing arbitration of the "managerial or confidential" designation. It also found a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the CBA's provisions regarding new positions. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration and granted the respondent's cross-motion, directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Public Employment ArbitrationManagerial/Confidential Employee DesignationCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Arbitrability DisputeUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureNew York Court System
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of the Honorable Alan M. Simon a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and the Ramapo Town Court, Rockland County

Alan M. Simon, a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and Ramapo Town Court, sought review of a State Commission on Judicial Conduct determination which sustained six charges of misconduct and recommended his removal. Simon conceded the misconduct but challenged the removal sanction, proposing censure instead. The Court rejected Simon's contention, accepting the Commission's recommendation for removal. The misconduct included improper use of sanctions, ethnic smearing, name-calling, a physical altercation, baseless threats of contempt against officials, and inappropriate interference in a political election. The Court found these actions to constitute a pattern of egregious misconduct, irredeemably damaging public confidence, and noted Simon's unrepentant and evasive testimony.

Judicial MisconductJudicial EthicsRemoval from OfficeSanction ReviewRules Governing Judicial ConductAbuse of PowerContempt ThreatsPolitical InterferenceTemperament IssuesJudicial Discipline
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Victor G.

This case involves a respondent's motion to dismiss an underlying delinquency petition and vacate prior court orders. The respondent argued that the original March 1993 petition, which charged drug possession, was jurisdictionally defective because the attached police laboratory report, certifying cocaine, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court, presided over by Harvey M. Sklaver, J., reviewed the legal sufficiency of similar laboratory reports in light of recent precedents, including Matter of Rodney J. and Matter of Enriquillo S. While acknowledging the potential facial insufficiency of the petition under these new interpretations, the court concluded it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the initial proceeding. The court determined that defects in a petition, while grounds for dismissal, do not negate the court's fundamental competence. Ultimately, the court declined to retroactively apply the Rodney J. rule to disturb orders that had already become final, citing the doctrine of res judicata and finding the petition's deficiency not fundamental enough to warrant vacating orders over a year old. Consequently, the respondent's motion was denied.

Juvenile DelinquencyExtension of PlacementHearsay EvidencePolice Laboratory ReportJurisdictional DefectSubject Matter JurisdictionRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFamily Court ProceduresAdmissibility of Evidence
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zellermaier v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Plaintiff Zellermaier, CEO of General Credit Corporation, initiated an action against Travelers, seeking $10,000,000 in damages for allegedly false statements made in a report to the New York State Insurance Department’s Frauds Bureau. This report concerned a suspected fraudulent claim for 13 stolen tractor trailers insured by Travelers, where General Credit had a security interest. Travelers moved for summary judgment, asserting protection under Insurance Law § 406, which provides civil liability immunity for reports of suspected insurance fraud, and arguing the action was barred by CPLR 215’s one-year statute of limitations. The court found no evidence of fraud or bad faith on Travelers' part. Consequently, the court granted Travelers’ cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied Zellermaier's motion to amend his complaint, affirming the statutory immunity and application of the statute of limitations. The court also noted that the case was barred by res judicata due to privity with a prior action.

Insurance FraudStatutory ImmunityInsurance Law § 406CPLR 215Summary JudgmentNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent Insurance TransactionsWorkers' Compensation FraudRes JudicataStatute of Limitations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spiotta v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

The petitioner, injured while employed by United Parcel Service, sought to obtain a medical report from Dr. Alex Strasser, who examined her on behalf of her employer and its insurance carrier, after being denied access. She initiated a proceeding in Supreme Court under CPLR article 31 to enforce her right to the report in furtherance of her workers’ compensation claim. The court examined the scope of CPLR article 31, concluding it generally applies to judicial proceedings and not exclusively to workers’ compensation claims which fall under a separate administrative framework. Emphasizing principles of judicial restraint, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and primary administrative jurisdiction, the court determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board, possessing broad powers to supervise its proceedings and compel disclosure, is the appropriate tribunal for such matters. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for relief in Supreme Court was denied without prejudice.

Workers' Compensation LawCPLR Article 31DisclosureAdministrative RemediesPrimary Administrative JurisdictionMedical ReportsJudicial ProceedingsSupreme CourtProcedural MotionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 23,452 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