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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2009

In re Sasha B.

The case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order in Bronx County, dated June 22, 2009, which found a respondent mother neglected her child. The determination stemmed from an incident where the mother left her sleeping 11.5-year-old child alone on a subway train. The child subsequently navigated her way back to school. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding determination of neglect, citing corroborating statements and the child's inability to get home, which indicated an imminent risk of harm. However, the appeal concerning the child's placement was dismissed as moot. A dissenting justice argued that the evidence did not establish "imminent danger" as legally defined, noting that the child safely returned to school and prior alleged incidents lacked sufficient corroboration.

Child NeglectSubway IncidentParental SupervisionImminent DangerCorroboration of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineDissenting OpinionChild Welfare
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2000

Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc.

Juanita Cruceta, an employee of Waldbaum, Inc., was injured after tripping at work and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. Along with her husband, Qulvio Cruceta, she initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Funnel Equities, Inc., the building owner and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waldbaum. Funnel moved for summary judgment, asserting the workers' compensation exclusivity provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), arguing it was an 'alter ego' of Waldbaum. The Supreme Court denied Funnel's motion. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unresolved factual issues regarding Funnel's 'alter ego' status with Waldbaum and its parent company, A&P, and whether Funnel possessed exclusive knowledge of these pertinent facts.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityFactual IssuesAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityBuilding Owner
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02252
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

BML Props. Ltd. v. China Constr. Am., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, partially modified and affirmed a Supreme Court order from New York County concerning a dispute between BML Properties Ltd. and China Construction America, Inc. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding unjust enrichment, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, and dismissed the request for lost profits damages. Conversely, it denied the plaintiff's motion concerning defendants' counterclaims for breach of sections 4.7 and 4.8 (g) of the Investors Agreement, while affirming other aspects of the lower court's decision. Key findings included that plaintiff's claims were not derivative, given an independent duty and explicit contractual authorization for individual lawsuits. Furthermore, the court identified lingering issues of fact pertinent to the breach of contract and fraud claims, necessitating further proceedings.

Contract LawSummary JudgmentDerivative ClaimsFraudUnjust EnrichmentImplied CovenantLost ProfitsInvestors AgreementBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benyi v. Broome County, NY

Plaintiff John J. Benyi, a New York State prisoner, filed a civil rights suit against Broome County, Binghamton City, and former officials, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations under various federal statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Baer, addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, ultimately dismissing most of Benyi's claims as time-barred under the relevant statutes of limitations. However, the court permitted a Section 1983 claim to proceed regarding a timely alleged death threat received in November 1990, finding a triable issue of deliberate indifference to inmate safety. Additionally, Benyi's Freedom of Information Law claim was dismissed due to a lack of supplemental jurisdiction, as it did not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with the civil rights claims. On reconsideration, the court denied Benyi's motion but granted his request to compel discovery pertinent to the sole remaining death threat claim.

Civil RightsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDue ProcessEighth AmendmentFreedom of Information LawSupplemental JurisdictionDeliberate IndifferenceMotion to Reconsider
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dickerson v. Novartis Corp.

Plaintiff Elyse Dickerson sued Alcon Laboratories, Inc., and Novartis Corporation, alleging gender-based pay discrimination, retaliation, unlawful termination, FMLA violations, and defamation. Defendants moved to sever Ms. Dickerson's individual claims from class and collective action claims and transfer them to the Northern District of Texas. The court granted the motion, citing that Ms. Dickerson's claims were already functionally separate, involved distinct facts and witnesses, and that the operative facts occurred primarily in Texas. The decision emphasizes judicial economy, convenience of witnesses, and the locus of operative facts as key reasons for severance and transfer, despite the plaintiff's initial choice of forum.

Gender discriminationRetaliationUnlawful terminationFMLADefamationVenue transferSeverance of claimsJudicial economyConvenience of witnessesLocus of operative facts
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 2,856 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