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. 2019 NY Slip Op 00690 [168 AD3d 638]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Cashbamba v. 1056 Bedford LLC

The plaintiff, Angel Leonides Cashbamba, fell from the seventh to the sixth floor of a building. He cross-moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting a lack of safety devices. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding undisputed facts about the fall and absence of safety devices established liability. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence due to triable issues of fact regarding the incident's specifics. Additionally, third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution were deemed non-viable under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's injury was not considered 'grave' given he returned to full-time employment.

Construction AccidentElevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsGrave InjurySafety DevicesAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06850 [212 AD3d 126]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Matter of Levi v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, was removed from the list of authorized medical providers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he received unlawful payments from a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, Elite Medical Supply of New York, LLC. This was deemed a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-d (2) (g), 13-l (10) (g) and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (3). Petitioner challenged this removal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a statutory right to a hearing before the Chiropractic Practice Committee (CPC) prior to removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The appellate court held that while Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l (10) outlines a CPC hearing process, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board also possesses independent authority under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-l (12) and 13-d (1) to investigate and remove a provider without a hearing when the underlying facts, such as petitioner's admitted receipt of unlawful payments, are undisputed and do not present questions of fact.

ChiropractorMedical ProviderAuthorization RemovalUnlawful PaymentsDurable Medical EquipmentWorkers' Compensation BoardProfessional MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
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. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

The People v. Anthony Debellis

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Anthony Debellis for criminal possession of a weapon, ordering a new trial. The Court found that Debellis's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the statutory defense of voluntary surrender, which was supported by Debellis's testimony. Instead, counsel sought an inapplicable charge on temporary and lawful possession. The dissenting opinion argued that no reasonable view of the undisputed facts supported a voluntary surrender charge and that counsel's overall performance was not deficient.

Effective Assistance of CounselIneffective CounselJury InstructionsVoluntary Surrender DefenseCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew York Court of AppealsAppellate ReversalNew TrialLegal EthicsConstitutional Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crowell v. Larkins

Plaintiff filed a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages after being struck by a nail gun operated by defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) because plaintiff was a coemployee. Supreme Court, Onondaga County, denied this motion, asserting that the co-employee status could not be determined as a matter of law due to factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, stating that co-employment status is a matter of law only when evidence is undisputed and facts are compellingly clear, which was not the case here.

Workers' CompensationCo-employmentSummary JudgmentLabor LawNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewIndependent ContractorFactual DisputeOnondaga County
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,861 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