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

Dallesandro v. Dallesandro

This opinion addresses a motion by Nationwide Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for the respondent's employer, to vacate a wage deduction order issued on June 26, 1981. The original order directed Nationwide to withhold $95 per week from the respondent's workers' compensation benefits for the support of his former wife and two children, due to the respondent's failure to pay. Nationwide contended that it was not explicitly authorized by Personal Property Law § 49-b and that workers' compensation benefits were statutorily exempt from support claims. The court rejected both arguments, holding that carriers acting as employer agents are bound by the law and that workers' compensation exemptions do not apply to support claims, citing legislative intent evidenced by the repeal of a former exemption. Consequently, the motion to vacate was denied, and the carrier was directed to comply with the original order.

Wage Deduction OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChild SupportAlimonyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Property LawWorkers' Compensation LawCarrier LiabilitySupport EnforcementLegislative Intent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1986

Drago v. Drago

The father appealed a Family Court order from Nassau County, directing him to pay weekly child support and arrears to the Support Collection Unit for his daughter. The daughter, after her parents' divorce, was forced to leave her mother's home and was subsequently turned away by her father. She then sought refuge in a state-funded program and initiated support proceedings against her parents. The Family Court found the father still obligated to support her until age 21, rejecting his arguments that she forfeited support by leaving home or not adhering to his conditions. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the daughter had good cause to leave her parents' homes and her father's demands for her to attend boarding school or join the military were unreasonable.

Child SupportParental ObligationFamily CourtNassau CountyAppealAffirmed DecisionEmancipationParental ResponsibilityRunaway YouthGood Cause
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huddleston v. Rufrano

The mother appealed a Family Court order denying her objections to a child support magistrate's decision, which directed the father to pay $155 per week. The appellate court modified the order, increasing the father's child support obligation to $259 per week. The court found that the Support Magistrate failed to properly impute additional income to the father, including payments from his business, A & J Drain, Inc., and earnings generated by his father-in-law. The father's testimony regarding his finances was deemed incredible. The appellate court determined the father's annual income to be $78,830.82, justifying the increased child support payment.

Child SupportIncome ImputationSelf-EmploymentWorkers' CompensationCredibilityAppellate ReviewFamily LawModification of SupportFinancial DisclosureSupport Magistrate
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nichols v. Hale Creek ASACTC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where a claimant was injured during an off-duty athletic activity. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. This decision was based on evidence that the claimant was specifically directed to improve staff morale and that his involvement in employee athletic activities, such as coaching a volleyball team for the Olympics, furthered this directive. The claimant's supervisor also testified that evaluating staff morale was part of assessing leadership ability and that superintendents were expected to be involved in facility-related events. The court affirmed the Board's factual determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryOff-duty ActivityStaff MoraleAthletic ActivityCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceLeadership AbilityWork-related DutiesSuperintendent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodge v. Selsky

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his CPLR article 78 petition challenging two prison disciplinary determinations. The first report alleged harassment, refusing an order, violent conduct, and assaulting staff. The second concerned tampering with state property found in his cell. The appellate court found that while substantial evidence supported the charges of harassment, refusing a direct order (due to a guilty plea), and tampering with state property, it did not support the charges of violent conduct and assaulting staff. Consequently, the judgment was modified to annul these specific charges, and all related references are to be expunged from petitioner's institutional record, with the petition being granted to that extent. The judgment was otherwise affirmed.

Prison disciplinary rulesCPLR article 78 proceedingHarassmentRefusing a direct orderTampering with state propertyViolent conductAssaulting staffSubstantial evidenceAdministrative appealJudicial review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Majekodunmi v. Majekodunmi

The parties, married in Nigeria in 1971, commenced divorce proceedings in August 2000. Plaintiff was awarded maintenance of $420 per month until February 2004 and $2,000 in counsel fees, while defendant's request for child support for their daughter Adetoro was denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the maintenance duration and counsel fees, citing the parties' frugal pre-divorce lifestyle and plaintiff's spending habits. However, the court found an abuse of discretion in denying child support, directing plaintiff to pay $32.24 weekly, emphasizing that obligations are based on ability to provide support, not just current financial condition.

DivorceMaintenanceChild SupportCounsel FeesAppellate DecisionMarital Standard of LivingEarning CapacityFinancial ConditionSpousal SupportSchenectady County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curle v. Ward

This case concerns a challenge to a directive issued by a state's correction department. The directive aimed to prohibit correction employees from associating with the Ku Klux Klan, citing widespread fear among inmates and staff and the potential for Klan activity to cripple facility operations. The core legal issue is whether this directive infringes upon an employee's First Amendment right to freedom of association. Justice Kane's dissenting opinion argues that the directive is a valid and necessary restriction to advance a compelling state interest in maintaining order and safety within the volatile prison environment, where the mere perception of Klan involvement among staff poses a significant threat. The dissent distinguishes this unique prison context from other First Amendment cases, asserting that no lesser action would suffice to preserve confidence and stability in staff/inmate relationships.

First AmendmentFreedom of AssociationCorrectional FacilitiesKu Klux KlanEmployee RightsGovernmental InterestPrison SecurityDissenting OpinionConstitutional LawPublic Employment
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04083
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of King v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves Charmaine King and other charter school petitioners seeking to compel the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York to provide COVID-19 screening tests to charter school students and staff, mirroring services offered to public school students. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition broadly, directing respondents to administer tests to New York City-resident children attending petitioners' charter schools to the same extent as public schools, and also to staff. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this judgment, affirming that Education Law § 912 mandates the provision of health screening tests, including COVID-19 tests, to resident children attending non-public schools on the same terms as public schools. However, the appellate court specifically limited the directive to New York City-resident children attending the petitioners' charter schools, excluding staff and non-party schools, as the statute only covers children, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

COVID-19 testingCharter schoolsPublic schoolsEducation Law § 912Health and Welfare ServicesEstablishment ClauseAppellate DivisionSchool districtsJudicial reviewMandate
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,959 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