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

Adams v. Chicago Insurance

Eric R. Adams, an attorney, sued Chicago Insurance Company for breach of its professional liability insurance policy, seeking a declaration that Chicago had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying professional malpractice lawsuit brought by Patricia E. Novak. Chicago disclaimed coverage, asserting Adams failed to provide timely notice of the potential malpractice claim as required by the policy's terms. The court initially found that Adams, despite his claims of a good faith belief in non-liability, unreasonably delayed notifying Chicago of the potential claim. However, the court ultimately concluded that Chicago was equitably estopped from denying coverage due to its own unreasonable eight-month delay in formally disclaiming coverage after receiving initial notice from Adams and for engaging in conduct that gave the appearance of defending Adams. Consequently, the court denied Chicago's motion for summary judgment and granted Adams' motion, compelling Chicago to defend and indemnify Adams in the malpractice action.

Professional LiabilityInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLegal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelTimeliness of NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Rochester General Hospital

Timothy Adams, a Bio-medical Engineering Technician (BIOTEC) at Rochester General Hospital (RGH), was terminated after repeated failures to properly inspect and repair critical medical equipment, which posed a direct threat to patient safety. Adams filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York’s Human Rights Law, claiming discrimination based on an alleged mental disability. U.S. Magistrate Judge Feldman granted RGH’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Adams failed to establish a prima facie case. The court found Adams was not disabled within the ADA's meaning, was not otherwise qualified for his job, and presented no evidence that RGH terminated him due to a known disability, as he never informed the hospital of any impairment or requested accommodation.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyMental HealthTerminationEmployee MisconductReasonable AccommodationMagistrate Judge Decision
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Adam NN.

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that terminated the parental rights of Jennifer NN. (mother) and Frederick NN. (father) to their child, Adam NN., pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, on the grounds of mental retardation. Adam was removed from his parents' care shortly after birth. Despite respondents' consistent attendance at supervised visitations, their parenting skills showed limited improvement. Psychological evaluations indicated both parents had subaverage intellectual functioning; the father's IQ was 50 (moderately mentally retarded), and the mother's was 63 (mildly mentally retarded). Experts testified that due to their cognitive deficiencies and impaired adaptive behavior, neither parent could provide proper and adequate care for Adam, who also has special needs, without significant risk of neglect. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of parental rights.

Parental rights terminationmental retardationchild neglectSocial Services LawIQ assessmentchild welfarespecial needs childFamily Court appealparental fitness
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00854
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Jones v. Adams

James Jones, a security guard at the New York Botanical Gardens, was injured when struck by a pickup truck operated by Toby Adams, an NYBG employee, and owned by Kaleidoscope Garden Design, LLC. Jones, who received Workers' Compensation benefits, subsequently sued Adams and Kaleidoscope for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the action because Adams was a co-employee acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants demonstrated the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) exclusivity provisions, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Exclusivity ProvisionCo-Employee ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury ActionAutomobile AccidentAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySecurity Guard Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1995

Adams v. Alexander's Deptment Stores of Brooklyn, Inc.

Plaintiff Janie Adams alleged that she slipped and fell on melted ice cream at Kings Plaza Mall, sustaining injuries that required lumbar spine fusion. Defendant Ogden Services Corporation, responsible for common area maintenance, moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding notice. However, on appeal, the order was reversed, and the complaint dismissed. The Appellate Division found that Adams failed to make a prima facie case against Ogden, lacking evidence that Ogden created or had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Furthermore, an unsworn statement by a witness was deemed to be without evidentiary value, insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentActual NoticeConstructive NoticeEvidentiary ValueUnsworn StatementAppellate ReviewMaintenance ContractIce Cream
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopes v. Adams

Plaintiffs Domingos F. Nunes and Manuel Vieira, construction workers, sustained personal injuries when struck by a vehicle while working on the Van Wyck Expressway. They brought a negligence action against the vehicle's owners/operators (Adams) and the general contractor, J. C. P. Contracting Corp., alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The trial court set aside a jury verdict against J. C. P. and dismissed the complaint against them, attributing sole causation to the vehicle operator. On appeal, the court determined that the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict. Consequently, the judgment was modified to reinstate the jury's verdict in favor of Nunes and Vieira against J. C. P. Contracting Corp., with costs awarded to the plaintiffs against J. C. P. Contracting Corp.

NegligencePersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSafe Place to WorkJury Verdict ReinstatementAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorProximate CauseMotor Vehicle AccidentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. No. 32
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Adam Schulze

Adam Schulze, a retired firefighter for the City of Newburgh, was disabled at work and received benefits from the City, New York State, and the Workers' Compensation System. This case examines whether the City can compel the Workers' Compensation Board to pay Mr. Schulze's workers' compensation benefits directly to the City to recoup an alleged overpayment for General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 25 (4) (a) and 30 (2) do not permit reimbursement for such payments, as they are considered pension supplements, not "salary or wages." The appropriate remedy for preventing duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a), which the City had not utilized effectively, leading to the overpayment. Therefore, the City of Newburgh Fire Department is not entitled to reimbursement directly from Mr. Schulze's workers' compensation award for its prior payments.

Firefighter Disability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation ReimbursementGeneral Municipal Law 207-aRetirement and Social Security LawPension SupplementsStatutory InterpretationDuplicative BenefitsPublic Employee CompensationMunicipal Employer LiabilityRetroactive Awards
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration Between Carina International Shipping Corp. & Adam Maritime Corp.

Carina International Shipping Corporation sought to confirm an arbitration award against Adam Maritime Corporation concerning demurrage claims related to a charter party contract for the vessel MT SOBRAL. Adam cross-moved to vacate the award, arguing that Carina's last-minute amendment to its demurrage claim violated contract clauses and that there was arbitrator misconduct and partiality. The court, presided over by Judge SOTOMAYOR, reviewed the arbitral award with a narrow standard, confirming it if there was "colorable justification." The court found the arbitrators had "colorable justification" for allowing the amended claim under the Charter Party and SMA Rules, and that Adam waived its right to argue procedural unfairness by not requesting a reopening of hearings for discovery. Allegations of arbitrator misconduct and partiality were dismissed as speculative or waived due to full disclosure. Consequently, the court denied Adam's motion to vacate and granted Carina's motion to confirm the arbitration award, also awarding Carina court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as per the Charter Party.

Arbitration AwardDemurrage ClaimCharter Party DisputeMaritime Arbitration RulesFederal Arbitration ActArbitrator DiscretionContractual WaiversJudicial Review StandardEvident PartialityArbitrator Misconduct
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2007

In re Adams

The Grievance Committee brought eight charges of professional misconduct against attorney Jeffrey M. Adams, which were sustained by a Special Referee. The charges included commingling personal and client funds, breaching fiduciary duty by failing to safeguard client funds and maintain adequate IOLA account balances, mistakenly depositing escrow funds into an operating account, and failing to maintain required bookkeeping records. Additionally, Charge Eight alleged improper sharing of legal fees with his suspended father, Eugene J. Adams, without obtaining court approval. The Court granted the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm all charges. Despite some mitigating factors, the Court found multiple breaches of fiduciary obligation and a longstanding disregard for proper escrow practices, ultimately imposing a one-year suspension on the respondent.

Attorney MisconductCommingling FundsFiduciary Duty BreachIOLA AccountEscrow ViolationsFee SplittingSuspended AttorneyProfessional DisciplineJudicial EthicsLegal Accounting
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 112 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