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
Oct 28, 1999

Rios v. 474431 Associates

The case involves an appeal by defendant 474431 Associates from an amended judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff for personal injuries. The Supreme Court had granted partial summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff established through circumstantial evidence that a pipe fell from an elevated height, striking him while he worked at ground level in the defendant's building. The appellate court affirmed the amended judgment, finding the plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment on liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the award of damages did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDamagesCircumstantial EvidenceFalling ObjectConstruction SiteLiabilityAffirmed Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 1984

Goldstein v. Barco of California, Inc.

The fourth-party defendant, Nathan’s Famous of Massapequa, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to amend its fourth-party answer. The proposed amendment aimed to plead the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the order, holding that an employer may be liable in a third-party or fourth-party action for an employee's injury, even if a direct action by the employee against the employer would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court cited precedent, including Dole v Dow Chem. Co., affirming that workers' compensation provisions do not bar such actions for indemnification or contribution. Consequently, the motion to amend the answer was deemed to be devoid of merit and was properly denied.

Workers' CompensationFourth-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendIndemnificationContributionExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPleading Amendment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyso v. City of New York

In a wrongful death action, plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which permitted the defendant to amend its answer. The amendment sought to add an affirmative defense asserting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The defendant’s motion to amend was granted approximately three years after the initial answer was served. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. It reasoned that the plaintiffs were aware of the decedent's employment status and thus could not claim surprise or prejudice. The court also clarified that the workers' compensation defense is only waived if not raised until final disposition, concluding that the defendant’s alleged delay did not preclude the amendment.

Wrongful Death ActionWorkers' Compensation DefenseAmendment of PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCPLR 3025CPLR 3205PrejudiceLachesWaiverAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2004

Claim of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 1, 2004. The Board's decision had ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The appellate court reviewed the claimant’s procedural arguments against the Board's decision, ultimately rejecting them as unfounded. Key points addressed included the authority of a reconstituted three-member Board to issue an amended decision reversing itself, which the court affirmed by referencing relevant Workers’ Compensation Law sections. Furthermore, the court dismissed the claimant's concerns regarding the staleness of reports from an independent medical examiner, clarifying that unlike treating physicians, independent medical examiners are not subject to statutory or regulatory requirements for routine progress reports. Consequently, the amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationBoard Decision AppealProcedural ArgumentsAmended DecisionIndependent Medical ExaminerMedical ReportsStalenessCompensable InjuryNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1993

Girardin v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 24, 1993. This order granted the defendants' motion to amend their answers to include the affirmative defense of res judicata and subsequently dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting leave to amend. The appellate court noted that the defense of res judicata was not available at the time of joinder of issue, as Workers’ Compensation determinations were still pending. The delay in filing the motion to amend after these determinations was not considered excessive. The plaintiffs' claim of prejudice due to the delay was rejected, as they had the opportunity to appeal the Workers’ Compensation determinations but chose not to.

Personal InjuriesRes JudicataCPLR 3025(b)Leave to AmendAffirmative DefenseDismissal of ComplaintAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionPrejudiceSupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angelora v. Kent Stores, Inc.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint against Kent Stores, Inc. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the second cause of action in the plaintiff's amended complaint against Louis Marcus. The basis for these dismissals was the plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The decision included an award of ten dollars in costs and disbursements.

Amended ComplaintDismissalSufficiency of FactsCause of ActionAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsConcurring JusticesCivil Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2012

Claim of Pawlitz-Delgaizo v. Community General Hospital

Claimant sustained work-related injuries to her head, back, and pelvis in October 1998, for which she received workers’ compensation benefits. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier (collectively referred to as the carrier) sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but subsequently reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board issued an amended decision affirming its reversal, concluding that the carrier failed to demonstrate that the claimant's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential, a requirement for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The carrier appealed this amended decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting that the carrier's expert opinion on hinderance was based on generalities and speculation, without a direct examination of the claimant or medical records indicating restrictions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPreexisting ImpairmentEmployment HindranceMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Lithuanian Workers' Literature Society

The Lithuanian Workers’ Literature Society appealed a Kings Special Term order denying its motion to amend its certificate of incorporation. The proposed amendment sought to broaden membership qualifications from adhering to the Socialist Party to not opposing "Marxian principles". The court scrutinized whether "Marxian principles" endorse the overthrow of government by force, which is criminal under state Penal Law. Citing Karl Marx's historical support for forceful revolutions (e.g., Paris Commune), the court concluded that these principles were broad enough to justify illegal propaganda. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed amendment would allow retention of members advocating "direct action" by force, contrary to the Socialist Party's recently amended platform promoting constitutional methods. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the amendment, refusing to sanction an organization whose principles could potentially endorse unlawful means.

Corporate AmendmentSocialismMarxian PrinciplesFreedom of AssociationPolitical PropagandaConstitutional LawPenal LawAppellate ReviewMembership Corporations LawDirect Action
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 16,001 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