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

Estes v. Estes

This case involves cross-appeals from an October 9, 1984 Family Court order in Rensselaer County concerning the custody of two children, Joshua M. Estes and Tanya A. Estes. The petitioner, the father, initially sought exclusive custody after moving the children from Colorado to New York. The Family Court ultimately granted permanent custody of Joshua to the petitioner and Tanya to the respondent, the mother, while also restricting either parent from removing the children from Rensselaer County without court permission. Both parents appealed, arguing that separating the siblings was against their best interests and each desiring full custody. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, citing evidence from a social worker and probation officer, along with the children's expressed preferences, which supported the continuation of the split custody arrangement and the geographic restriction.

Child Custody DisputeSplit Custody OrderBest Interests of the ChildFamily Law AppealParental Relocation RestrictionRensselaer County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationParental Fitness AssessmentSocial Worker ReportProbation Officer Investigation
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00699 [191 AD3d 1274]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Healy v. Est Downtown, LLC

Plaintiff James Healy, a maintenance technician, was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder while attempting to remove a bird's nest from a gutter at a property owned by defendant EST Downtown, LLC. He commenced an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that plaintiff was engaged in a protected non-routine cleaning activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) at the time of the accident, despite a dissent arguing it was routine maintenance.

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder FallCleaning ActivityRoutine MaintenanceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryElevation-Related RiskBird's Nest RemovalGutter Cleaning
References
18
Case No. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

James Healy v. EST Downtown

This case concerns an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff, James Healy, sought partial summary judgment under the statute, which requires certain contractors and property owners to provide safety devices for elevation-related risks during specific activities like "cleaning." The court applied a four-factor analysis from Soto v J. Crew Inc. to determine if the plaintiff's work constituted "cleaning." It found that the work was "routine," weighing against its classification as "cleaning" under the statute. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor LawElevation-Related RisksSummary JudgmentRoutine WorkCleaning ActivityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryCommercial PremisesSafety Devices
References
2
Case No. ADJ9085187
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

ESTES BANKS vs. CINCINNATI BENGALS, OAKLAND RAIDERS, FREMONT INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision regarding applicant Estes Banks and defendants Cincinnati Bengals, Oakland Raiders, and Fremont Indemnity. The Board determined that reconsideration was necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future filings related to this petition for reconsideration must be directed to the Office of the Commissioners.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPermissibly SelfInsuredCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONliquidationstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionfurther proceedingsElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Estes v. Metropolitan Warehouse, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the State Insurance Fund (SIF) was not liable for workers' compensation benefits to a claimant, leading the employer to appeal. The dispute arose after SIF cancelled the employer's policy due to nonpayment, despite the employer's subsequent payment and claims of not receiving cancellation notice. The court found that SIF strictly complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) requirements for cancellation, providing evidence of notice delivery. Furthermore, the doctrine of estoppel was deemed inapplicable, as the employer could not have reasonably believed the policy was reinstated given SIF's explicit warnings and communication. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported SIF's discharge from liability.

Workers' Compensation PolicyInsurance CancellationNonpayment of PremiumStrict ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Law § 54 (5)Doctrine of EstoppelPolicy ReinstatementAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCarrier Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ8938281
Regular
Feb 02, 2015

Richard Hunter vs. Estes Express Lines, New Hampshire Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's psyche and the award of further medical treatment. The Board found the defendant's utilization review denial of medication was untimely, warranting a 25% penalty and attorney's fee for the unreasonable delay in treatment. Reconsideration was also granted to formally admit exhibits related to the treating physician's request for authorization into evidence.

Industrial injuryPsycheTruck driverUtilization reviewTimelinessPenaltyAttorney feeAgreed medical examinerPretrial conference statementSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhart v. Coles

This case involves appeals concerning a child custody modification and a denied motion for renewal. The Family Court granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order, transferring sole custody of their son, Joshua, from the respondent to the petitioner. The court found that the respondent engaged in deceit and fabrication to undermine the petitioner's relationship with the child, including falsely alleging abuse. Additionally, the respondent's history of alcohol abuse and the child's negative behavioral changes when contact with the petitioner was curtailed were cited as factors. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing deference to its factual findings and credibility assessments, and upheld the denial of the respondent's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

custody disputevisitation rightsparental alienationchild's best interestcredibility assessmentalcohol abuseineffective assistance of counselFamily Court proceedingsappellate reviewcustody modification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Previl

This case addresses the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument charging defendant Anthony Previl, operating L’Eternal Qui est Dieu Restaurant, with violating Workers’ Compensation Law sections 50 and 52 for failing to secure insurance for employee Admarie Baskin. Previl sought to dismiss the complaint, contending it was an unconverted misdemeanor complaint based on hearsay. The People argued that a certified New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) decision, attached to the instrument, satisfied the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40. The court ruled that certified state department records, including WCB decisions, are admissible under CPLR 2307 and 4518 (c) as prima facie evidence of their contents, regardless of whether hearsay was considered by the WCB Judge. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, affirming the legal sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

Workers' Compensation LawAccusatory InstrumentMisdemeanorHearsay EvidenceMotion to DismissCPL 100.40CPLR 4518Certified RecordsBusiness Records ExceptionUninsured Employer
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lyman M.

The Commissioner of Social Services petitioned the Family Court for an extension of placement for a 17-year-old juvenile delinquent and sought specific court directives for him to attend school until age 18 and engage in alcoholism treatment. The respondent, placed in the Commissioner's custody in 1988, had dropped out of school at 17. Presiding Judge Robert L. Estes denied the requests for specific directives, determining the court lacked authority to compel a 17-year-old to attend school against his will under Education Law § 3205 and Family Court Act Article 3, distinguishing it from PINS cases. However, the court granted the extension of the respondent's placement until his eighteenth birthday to ensure continued casework counseling services and facilitate his access to residential substance abuse treatment, noting the Commissioner's administrative responsibilities under the Social Services Law. The decision highlighted the importance of residential treatment for the respondent's best interests, despite the denial of direct court orders for school and treatment engagement.

Juvenile DelinquencyExtension of PlacementSchool AttendanceFamily Court ActEducation LawSocial Services LawParental AuthorityRehabilitative TreatmentSubstance AbuseMedicaid Coverage
References
5
Showing 1-9 of 9 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