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

Madison County Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Chafee v. Felker

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, the father of a son born in 2002, failed to pay $25 per week in child support to Mary Chafee, as mandated by a May 2007 order. The Family Court affirmed the Support Magistrate's finding of willful violation and imposed a sentence of incarceration, conditional upon payment of $3,650 in arrears. The appellate court rejected the respondent's arguments, including his inability to pay due to lack of income and his claim regarding the $500 arrears cap, citing a lack of credible evidence and his failure to seek modification of the original support order. Consequently, the Family Court's determination was affirmed.

Child SupportWillful ViolationArrearsFamily Court ActParental ObligationContempt of CourtAbility to PayModification of SupportAppeal DecisionSupport Magistrate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2013

St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Elizabeth V. v. Chad T.

In March 2013, Elizabeth V initiated a proceeding against respondent for willfully violating a 2010 child support order. A Support Magistrate found a willful violation, which the Family Court confirmed, subsequently sentencing the respondent to 30 days in jail. Respondent appealed this decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concluding that no appeal can be made from a consent order, and the challenge to the sentence was moot as respondent had already served his jail time.

Child Support EnforcementWillful ViolationFamily Court AppealConsent OrderMootness DoctrineIncarceration PenaltySt. Lawrence CountyAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Whitney Z.

Respondent, a juvenile delinquent, was placed on probation but later admitted to violating its terms, leading to her placement in the custody of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. She appealed the order, and the appellate court first rejected the petitioner's claim of abandonment. On the merits, the court agreed with the respondent that the probation violation petition was jurisdictionally defective. The petition, filed by a probation officer based on hearsay, lacked nonhearsay allegations and supporting affidavits. The court ruled that the absence of nonhearsay affidavits constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect, even if the respondent admitted to the violation, and therefore reversed the lower court's order and dismissed the petition.

Juvenile DelinquencyProbation ViolationJurisdictional DefectNonhearsay AllegationsAffidavitFamily Court ActAppealCustodyDue ProcessReversed
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Jones

This case involves appeals from two Family Court orders concerning a visitation violation and an award of counsel fees. The father initiated a proceeding alleging the mother violated a modified visitation order by not facilitating therapeutic visitation for their daughter and not ensuring she received separate counseling regarding an alleged sexual contact incident. The Family Court found the mother willfully violated the order and partially granted the father's motion for counsel fees, denying the mother's request to call the daughter as a witness or hold a Lincoln hearing. The appellate court affirmed both orders, concluding that the evidence supported the finding of a willful violation and that the Family Court properly exercised its discretion regarding the daughter's testimony and the counsel fee award. The mother failed to follow specific instructions from the therapist regarding visitation and limited the scope of the daughter's individual therapy.

Child visitationCustody order violationTherapeutic visitationCounsel feesWillful violationFamily Court ActJudiciary LawAppellate reviewParental cooperationChild therapy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pamela R. v. James N.

This case addresses the appropriate burden of proof in Family Court contempt proceedings concerning custody order violations, specifically contrasting criminal and civil contempt. The court examined whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal contempt, as established by Rubackin v Rubackin, and clear and convincing evidence for civil contempt. The father was accused of willfully violating a sole custody order by altering his daughter's prescribed medication regimen. The court found that the mother failed to prove criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence, as the father's actions were deemed justified due to his medical expertise and good faith belief regarding his daughter's well-being. Consequently, the mother's petition was dismissed.

Family CourtContempt ProceedingCustody OrderBurden of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptReasonable DoubtClear and Convincing EvidenceJudicial AuthorityParental Rights
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 34,693 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