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

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruffolo v. Garbarini

The case concerns a legal malpractice claim filed before the effective date of a CPLR 214 (6) amendment, which changed the statute of limitations for nonmedical malpractice claims to three years, irrespective of the underlying legal theory. Prior to this amendment, legal malpractice actions seeking damages recoverable under a contract claim were governed by a six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [2]). The plaintiff's action, filed in March 1996, fell within the six-year period but outside the three-year period from accrual (February 1991). The IAS Court dismissed the complaint, retroactively applying the three-year limitation. The appellate court reversed, asserting that the amendment cannot retroactively invalidate an action that was timely when commenced, as this would impair vested rights and violate due process. Thus, the plaintiff's complaint was reinstated.

Statute of LimitationsLegal MalpracticeContract LawRetroactive ApplicationDue ProcessVested RightsCPLR 214(6)Appellate ReviewBreach of ContractTort Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alston v. Transport Workers Union

Plaintiff sued a labor union for breach of its duty of fair representation between August 1986 and February 1987, alleging failure to properly represent him in disciplinary proceedings leading to his dismissal. The action was commenced on February 9, 1993. The central issue on appeal is whether the action is governed by CPLR 217 (2) (a), effective July 11, 1990, which shortened the statute of limitations to four months, or the previous six-year period. The court ruled that applying the four-month statute retroactively to a cause of action that accrued no later than February 27, 1987, would be unconstitutional, as it would immediately bar the claim without allowing a reasonable time to sue. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations applies, and the plaintiff's action was timely commenced. The court declined to follow the reasoning in Kleinmann v Bach regarding the applicability of CPLR 217 (2) (a) based on prior PERB charges.

Statute of LimitationsFair RepresentationLabor UnionBreach of DutyRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawDue ProcessCPLRCivil Service LawJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03093
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2018

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case addresses the applicable statute of limitations for no-fault claims against a self-insured entity. The Court of Appeals determined that the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214 (2) governs such claims, as the obligation to provide no-fault benefits by a self-insurer is statutory rather than contractual. This decision reversed the Appellate Division, which had applied a six-year statute of limitations based on a contractual nature. The Court clarified that in the absence of a private insurance contract, the self-insurer's liability for first-party benefits is wholly statutory. The ruling impacts procedural aspects without altering the substantive no-fault obligations of self-insurers.

Statute of LimitationsNo-Fault InsuranceSelf-Insurer LiabilityCPLR 214 (2)CPLR 213 (2)Statutory ObligationContractual ObligationFirst-Party BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2012

Perez v. Fitzgerald

This case addresses whether the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations for medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice (CPLR 214-a) applies to chiropractic malpractice actions. The plaintiff sued chiropractor Dr. Jane Fitzgerald for failing to diagnose a spinal tumor from an MRI. The trial court dismissed the complaint as time-barred, applying CPLR 214-a, but the appellate court reviewed established precedent (Bleiler v Bodnar, Karasek v LaJoie). The appellate court held that chiropractic treatment, when not directed by a physician or substantially related to medical treatment by a physician, does not fall under CPLR 214-a. Consequently, the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214(6)) applies, making the plaintiff's action timely, and the Supreme Court's judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, with the jury's verdict reinstated.

Chiropractic MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-aCPLR 214 (6)Medical MalpracticeHealth Care ProvidersAppellate DivisionDiagnosis ErrorSpinal TumorMRI
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1981

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Jamaica Water Supply Co.

An unnamed insurance carrier, as plaintiff, sued an unnamed defendant to recover first-party benefits paid to its insured, Leon Morris, following a 1977 accident. The defendant sought to dismiss the complaint, citing the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214) from the accident date. Special Term denied this motion, arguing a two-year toll under Insurance Law § 673 (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial but on different grounds. The court ruled that Insurance Law § 673 (2) creates an independent cause of action for the insurer, distinct from subrogation. Consequently, the three-year limitation period accrues not from the accident itself, but from the point the insurer became entitled to sue, specifically, two years after the insured failed to sue for first-party benefits. Thus, the insurer's action was deemed timely.

Statute of LimitationsInsurance Law § 673 (2)CPLR 214No-Fault BenefitsCause of Action AccrualStatutory LiabilityInsurance Carrier ActionAppellate ReviewArbitration DecisionPersonal Injury Litigation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karasek v. LaJoie

Plaintiff initiated a malpractice action against Arlene Levine, a licensed psychologist, alleging negligent misdiagnosis and treatment of a multiple personality disorder. The central legal question involved whether the claim was subject to the 2.5-year medical malpractice statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a) or the 3-year general professional malpractice statute (CPLR 214 (6)). The Supreme Court denied Levine's motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed, deeming the services medical malpractice. The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, ruled that a psychologist's services are not 'medical' under CPLR 214-a, thus applying the 3-year limitation period and reinstating the plaintiff's timely claim.

mental health malpracticepsychologist negligencestatute of limitationsCPLR 214-a interpretationprofessional malpracticemedical vs. non-medical servicesmultiple personality disordernegligent misdiagnosisappellate reviewstatutory construction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2001

Zeides v. Hebrew Home for Aged At Riverdale, Inc.

The court considered an appeal from an order denying the defendant's summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss a complaint as time-barred. Plaintiff had alleged violations of the Public Health Law, ordinary negligence, and wrongful death against the defendant nursing home, stemming from a patient's injuries including pressure sores and inadequate nutrition. Defendant argued the claims were medical malpractice, subject to a 2½-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214-a), while plaintiff asserted the statutory claim fell under a 3-year period (CPLR 214 [2]). The court modified the decision, allowing the defendant to renew its motion after further discovery, acknowledging the need for more facts to determine the appropriate statute of limitations for the various claims. A dissenting opinion questioned the majority's decision to independently address the statutory cause of action's limitation period.

statute of limitationssummary judgment motionPublic Health Lawnursing home negligencemedical malpracticeordinary negligencewrongful deathdiscovery processcomplaint amendmentpatient rights
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,354 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