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
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2002

In re Roy R.

The Family Court found the respondent (mother) guilty of neglect due to her repeated attempts to allow the father, who had a history of drug abuse and domestic violence, to return to the family home. The respondent knew or should have known of the father's drug use within the home, leading to two of the three children witnessing drug use, having access to drugs, and on one occasion, ingesting them. The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of evidence, including the children's cross-corroborated statements to a social worker, the respondent's statements about the father's drug addiction, and the father's documented history of drug abuse. The orders of disposition, which released the children to the respondent’s custody under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services for 12 months, were unanimously affirmed.

NeglectDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceChild WelfareFamily CourtParental NeglectChild CustodyEvidenceCorroborationAppellate Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Foley

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals' (the board) determination that a drug abuse counseling center was a permitted use for Daytop Village Foundation, Inc. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the board's decision and remitted the matter for a de novo hearing. Daytop and the board members appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, confirmed the board's original determination, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The court found the board's interpretation of the zoning ordinance, which permitted 'professional office uses,' to be rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting that Daytop's facility was licensed and staffed by professionals.

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theresa J. v. Patricia J.

This case involves an appeal in a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, where the respondent mother was accused of neglecting her three children due to drug misuse. Evidence presented included the mother testing positive for cocaine during childbirth, her admission to occasional cocaine use, and the premature birth and death of one child due to renal failure. While the majority found a prima facie case of neglect warranting a continued fact-finding hearing, the dissenting justice argued that a prima facie case was not established, citing a lack of proof for repeated drug misuse or a direct causal link between the mother's drug use and the child's impairment or death. Both the majority and dissent agreed to remand the case for further proceedings, especially considering a potential subsequent drug arrest of the respondent.

NeglectChild ProtectionDrug MisuseCocainePremature BirthInfant DeathPrima Facie CaseRemandFamily Court ActAppeal
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06564
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Raivyn BB. (Courtney BB.)

This case concerns appeals from Family Court orders adjudicating Raivyn BB. a neglected child due to alleged parental drug use by mother Courtney BB. and father Kip AA. The child tested positive for methamphetamines after birth, prompting neglect petitions. The Appellate Division reversed the neglect findings against both parents. The court found that the evidence did not establish a direct causal link between the mother's methamphetamine use and the child's impairment, noting potential withdrawal symptoms from prescribed Subutex. Furthermore, the father's conduct, including hostility or refusal to sign a birth certificate, was not deemed to constitute neglect, and no evidence showed his knowledge of the mother's drug use. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

Neglected ChildParental Drug UseChild ToxicologyMethamphetamineSubutexFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewCausative ConnectionImpairment of ChildMinimum Degree of Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1973

Reeves v. Golar

A probationary patrolman's employment with the New York City Housing Authority was terminated following suspicions of narcotic use, despite his claims of medication-related quinine traces and denial of unlawful drug use. His requests for medical test reports and a thorough medical examination were denied, leading to an informal hearing and subsequent termination. The court questioned the arbitrary and capricious nature of the dismissal, highlighting that the termination was based on unproven drug use rather than work performance. Citing due process concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the petitioner's liberty interest and reputation, the court found he deserved a proper hearing to refute the charges. Consequently, the Supreme Court's judgment to reinstate the petitioner was partially reversed, and the case was remanded to the Housing Authority for a further hearing and medical investigation.

Due processArticle 78probationary employmentterminationnarcotic suspicionurine testarbitrary and capriciousliberty interestFourteenth Amendmenthearing rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,178 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