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
Dec 14, 1989

Albert G. v. Denise B.

This case involved a father's petition to terminate the mother's visitation rights with their 8-year-old child, leading to an order for supervised visitation. The child, born out of wedlock in 1983, made allegations in 1988 that his mother used cocaine in his presence. The Family Court admitted hearsay testimony from witnesses regarding these allegations, citing Family Court Act § 1046 as an exception for abuse and neglect cases. The mother appealed, arguing the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding the testimony properly received and corroboration present.

Family Court ActChild Visitation RightsTermination of Parental RightsChild Abuse AllegationsHearsay ExceptionSupervised VisitationOut-of-Wedlock ChildCustody DisputeParental ConductCocaine Use Allegations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura A. K. v. Timothy M.

The case involved appeals by a father concerning two Family Court orders related to child custody and visitation in Orange County. The first order, dated March 23, 1992, denied his petition for joint custody, while the second, dated February 25, 1993, limited his visitation rights to supervised Sunday afternoons. Additionally, a law guardian had cross-appealed the first order regarding the father's expanded visitation rights, but this cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed both Family Court orders, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount in custody proceedings. The court found that the parents' hostility and inability to cooperate, along with the mother being the primary caregiver, justified the sole custody award to the mother and the imposed visitation limitations.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewJoint CustodySole CustodyBest Interest of the ChildParental AntagonismSupervised VisitationDomestic Relations Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2014

Shoshanah B. v. Lela G.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child therapy and visitation. The original order, entered on November 5, 2014, permitted the respondent (custodial parent) to enroll the parties' child in therapy and temporarily suspended the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The Appellate Division modified the order, affirming the respondent's right to enroll the child in therapy but vacating the suspension of the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The court found that while the respondent acted appropriately in seeking therapy for the child due to emotional distress, the Family Court erred in modifying the visitation schedule without a proper hearing, as there was no showing of an immediate emergency. The ruling underscores the requirement for a hearing when modifying custody or visitation orders, even on a temporary basis.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsChild TherapyParental RightsCustody Agreement ModificationJudicial Hearing OfficerAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEmergency Order
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,945 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