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

In re Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Ruben G. (Claudia G.)

The petitioner appealed orders from the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions filed under Family Court Act article 10 alleging neglect due to domestic violence against Claudia G. and Leon T. The appellate court reversed the December 4, 2014, order, finding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of neglect against both respondents. Evidence included Claudia G.'s admission to an emergency room social worker that the children witnessed Leon T. abusing her, and Claudia G.'s failure to follow a safety plan. The petitions were reinstated, and the case was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Family LawChild NeglectDomestic ViolencePrima Facie CaseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewOrder ReversalCase RemittalEvidence AdmissibilityWitness Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08951 [178 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a petition by Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, which sought to vacate an arbitration award denying their claim. Global Liberty had argued that workers' compensation benefits were available to the assignor, Ramon Martinez, and thus their denial of the no-fault insurance claim to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (Martinez's assignee) was proper. The court found that Global Liberty failed to prove Martinez was injured in the course of his employment. The order was modified to remand the matter for a determination of attorneys' fees owed to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC, including those for the appeal.

Insurance DenialNo-Fault BenefitsArbitration AwardAttorneys' FeesWorkers' Compensation CoverageEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewRemandBurden of ProofAssignor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Robert SS. v. Ashley TT.

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody and visitation. The mother, Ashley TT., appealed the visitation order after the Family Court granted her sole legal custody but allowed the incarcerated father, Robert SS., four visits per year with their son. The father is serving an eight-year prison sentence for rape. The Family Court considered the son's preference to visit his father and found that a social worker's concerns about potential harm were not directly related to the father's behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that the mother failed to rebut the presumption that visitation with an incarcerated parent is in the child's best interests by a preponderance of the evidence.

Child CustodyChild VisitationIncarcerated ParentBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 6Custody ModificationParental RightsSchuyler CountyAppellate DecisionChild Welfare
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. White

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order granting primary physical custody of the parties' two children to the father. The parents, previously married, had a daughter (born 1999) and a son (born 2002). The mother sought treatment for alcohol and prescription drug abuse in Tennessee. During her treatment, the father moved with the children to Albany, New York, for an employment opportunity. After treatment, the parents could not agree on residency, leading the father to petition for custody, which the mother cross-petitioned. Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to the father, establishing a parenting schedule for the mother. The mother appealed this decision, arguing the Family Court did not properly weigh certain testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision to award primary physical custody to the father was in the children's best interests, given the stability he provided as the primary caretaker, his active involvement in their academic and medical care, and their thriving in his environment.

Custody DisputesChild Best InterestsParental FitnessSubstance Abuse TreatmentRelocation of ChildrenAppellate Review of Family CourtPrimary Physical CustodyJoint Legal CustodyParenting ScheduleChild Stability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Streetman v. Brown

A maternal grandmother sought custody of her grandchild, James, who was in foster care due to parental abuse and neglect. The Family Court dismissed her application, determining that while extraordinary circumstances existed, placing James with the grandmother was not in the child's best interests. The grandmother appealed, arguing the Family Court should have ordered an alcohol evaluation of her non-party husband. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no error in the Family Court's decision and upholding its consideration of the grandmother's past parenting environment and her husband's health issues, despite a favorable home study.

CustodyGrandparental RightsFamily LawChild WelfareBest Interests of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAlcoholismHome StudyAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2005

In re Martin E.

This case involves an appeal from an order issued by the Family Court of Clinton County. The order granted the petitioner's request to extend the respondent's placement, who was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in December 2003. The Family Court determined that it was not in the respondent's best interests to return to his mother's custody, citing her inability to provide adequate supervision and the respondent's dangerous behaviors. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's consideration of relevant documents and testimony, ultimately affirming the decision based on a preponderance of credible evidence.

Juvenile DelinquencyPlacement ExtensionFamily CourtChild WelfareBest Interests of ChildParental SupervisionRisk AssessmentPermanency PlanAppellate ReviewCredibility Determinations
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,407 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