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

Ribya BB. v. Wing

Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of her request to expunge her name from the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment. An indicated report of child maltreatment was filed after she allegedly left her severely disabled and autistic child unsupervised on three occasions in November 1994. Despite her claim that a cousin was watching the child, an administrative review and subsequent hearing found 'some credible evidence as well as a fair preponderance' of evidence supporting maltreatment, leading to the denial of her expungement request. The Appellate Division confirmed the respondent's determination, citing substantial evidence including admissible double hearsay and inconsistencies in testimony, and dismissed the petition.

Child MaltreatmentExpungementState Central RegisterChild AbuseAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceHearsay AdmissibilityCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
11
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
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

In Re Philgo Realty Co.

The Debtor filed a motion to expunge a claim (Claim Number 8) filed by Worcester Quality Foods, Inc. The claim stemmed from a judgment against the Debtor in a Massachusetts action for a fraudulent conveyance of $144,000.00. The Debtor argued the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment violated the automatic stay from the Debtor's involuntary bankruptcy petition. The court denied the Debtor's motion, ruling that the Massachusetts court's jurisdiction determination was res judicata as the Debtor failed to perfect an appeal. Additionally, the court granted nunc pro tunc relief from the automatic stay to the claimant because the Debtor and its principals remained silent about the bankruptcy filing during the Massachusetts action.

BankruptcyClaim ExpungementRes JudicataAutomatic StayDue ProcessFraudulent ConveyanceNunc Pro Tunc ReliefInvoluntary PetitionChapter 11Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.

The Chapter 11 debtor, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., moved to disallow James E. Parks' claim, arguing it was filed after the court-ordered bar date of October 30, 1990. Parks, a former customer, did not receive actual notice of the bar date, although the debtor was aware of his potential claim through letters from Legal Services. The court found that due process requires actual notice for known creditors and determined that the debtor had actual notice of Parks' asserted claim. Therefore, the court concluded that Parks was entitled to actual notice, which he did not receive, and granted an extension for his claim. Parks' proof of claim, filed on May 17, 1993, was deemed timely, and the debtor's motion to expunge was denied.

Bankruptcy LawProof of ClaimBar DateExcusable NeglectActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDue ProcessCreditors' RightsChapter 11Debtor in Possession
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archer v. Carrion

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. The petitioner sought to expunge a report from the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, but the application was denied. The court confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the petitioner, a daycare worker, failed to adequately supervise a 22-month-old child who subsequently wandered onto a busy road due to unsafe daycare premises. The petitioner's arguments regarding the denial of the opportunity to examine a caseworker were deemed waived, and the exclusion of unemployment benefits evidence was found to be irrelevant to the charges.

Child AbuseChild MaltreatmentExpungementDaycare SupervisionAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWaiver of ClaimsAdmissibility of Evidence
References
13
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
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 Mariah Corrigan v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services

This case addresses whether a statutory procedure for early expungement of child abuse reports applies when parents are assigned to the Family Assessment Response (FAR) track under Social Services Law § 427-a, rather than undergoing a formal investigation. Petitioners sought to expunge records related to an educational neglect report handled via the FAR track, arguing for parity with the traditional investigative track which allows for early expungement of unfounded reports. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both rejected this, holding that the legislature intentionally omitted such a provision in the FAR statute to maintain its non-adversarial, service-oriented approach. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that statutory construction dictates that a legislative omission is intentional and that resolving policy concerns is a task for the legislature. The court further noted that petitioners' constitutional claim was not properly preserved for review.

Child abuseEducational neglectFamily Assessment Response (FAR)Social Services LawStatutory constructionLegislative intentExpungement of recordsAdministrative reviewAppellate practiceCPLR Article 78
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 39 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