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
Feb 10, 2014

In re Maria S.

This case concerns a motion filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to quash a subpoena from respondent Ramon R., seeking records from a 2007 investigation into his household, which was previously deemed unfounded. Ramon R. is currently facing allegations of sexual offenses against Maria S. in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding. The court determined that the 2007 investigative materials are relevant to the current allegations, especially regarding Maria S.’s interactions with Ramon R. Despite Social Services Law § 422(5)(a) mandating the sealing of unfounded reports, the court ruled that other investigative documents are not subject to this sealing provision. Consequently, the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, ordering ACS to release all documents from the 2007 investigation, excluding the oral report transmittal, after an in camera review.

SubpoenaChild Protective ServicesFamily LawRecord DisclosureConfidentialityUnfounded ReportsIn Camera ReviewSocial Services LawFamily Court ActChild Abuse Allegations
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stephen F.

In a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, the Beth Israel Medical Center moved to quash a subpoena for records of the respondents, citing confidentiality protections under 21 U.S. Code § 1175 for drug abuse prevention records. The court weighed the public interest in child protection against patient confidentiality. It granted the motion to quash concerning the father's records, noting no allegation of neglect due to his drug use. For the mother's records, the court found the existing evidence of her prior drug use (admissions to a caseworker, grandmothe, and a prior Family Court finding) would make the subpoenaed records merely cumulative, thus not meeting the 'good cause' standard for immediate disclosure. However, the court reserved its final decision on quashing the subpoena for the mother's records, awaiting testimony from the doctor who diagnosed the child with 'failure to thrive' to determine if the records are relevant to the cause of the condition.

Neglect ProceedingChild ProtectionConfidentiality of RecordsDrug Abuse TreatmentSubpoenaFamily CourtMedical Records DisclosurePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGood Cause StandardCumulative Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Hardy

The Monroe County Department of Social Services, as petitioner in a paternity case against 'X' concerning a child born to 'Y', filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena sought records related to assistance given to 'Y' and her statements about the child's parentage. The Department argued confidentiality under Social Services Law and CPLR. The court, presided by Judge Joseph T. Pilato, denied the motion, ruling that such records are not uniformly confidential and that special circumstances exist, especially given the infant's rights and the necessity of all available evidence for a paternity determination. The court ordered disclosure of relevant records to the respondent, limited to conversations between the petitioner and the caseworker.

paternity casesubpoena duces tecumconfidentialitysocial services recordsspecial circumstancesfiliation proceedingdisclosureinfant's rightsFamily CourtCPLR
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. Waterfront Commission

The president of the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Medical Center of New York, Inc. moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The movant argued that the commission lacked jurisdiction, the subpoena was overly broad, and it demanded privileged medical records. The commission initiated the investigation after the New York State Department of Insurance found discrepancies during an audit of the medical center’s welfare fund, specifically regarding a contract with T. C. Dental Laboratories, which was also implicated in irregularities in a New Jersey investigation. The court denied the motion, affirming the commission's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Commission Compact, stating that misuse of worker funds constitutes a 'waterfront practice' within its purview. The court also found the subpoena was not unduly broad, as it requested only corporate minutes relevant to the investigation, and confirmed that privileged medical records were not required.

Subpoena QuashWaterfront CommissionJudicial ReviewCorporate GovernanceFinancial AuditMedical FundDental ServicesLabor WelfareRegulatory JurisdictionCorrupt Practices
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pfeiffer v. Rand (In Re Rand)

Katherine Pfeiffer, an unemployed office worker acting pro se, objected to the discharge of Jonathan Rand and the dischargeability of her claim against him. Rand moved to dismiss her complaint, citing improper service and failure to state a claim. The court found Pfeiffer's January 3rd letter constituted a timely complaint, but her subsequent service of only a summons was improper. However, acknowledging Pfeiffer's pro se status and efforts to correct the error, the court denied Rand's motion to dismiss for improper service, instead quashing the service and directing Pfeiffer to re-serve once an amended complaint is filed. The court granted Rand's motion to dismiss Pfeiffer's objection to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 due to a lack of pleaded facts, without leave to replead. Conversely, the court conditionally denied the motion to dismiss Pfeiffer's claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523, granting her leave to replead with particularity, and also denied Rand's request for sanctions.

BankruptcyDischargeabilityMotion to DismissAdversary ProceedingPro Se LitigantRule 7004Rule 4(j)Rule 727Rule 523Fraudulent Intent
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 9,916 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