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

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co.

Plaintiff Michael Bright-Asante brought an action against Saks & Company, Inc., Theo Christ, and Local 1102, alleging employment discrimination, breach of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court addressed three motions: Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Saks' motion for sanctions, and Saks' motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the complaint. The court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and Saks' motion for sanctions, citing that the motion to amend was not "utterly lacking in support." Saks' motion to compel arbitration for the breach of CBA claim was granted, while arbitration for statutory discrimination claims was denied, as the CBA did not clearly mandate it. Finally, the court granted Saks' motion to dismiss the race discrimination (NYCHRL) and retaliation (NYLL) claims but denied the motion to dismiss the constructive discharge claim, finding sufficient facts for the latter.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRule 15 MotionRule 11 SanctionsRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissSection 1981NYCHRL
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
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

Matter of Corwin v. City of New York

Ronald Corwin was injured in a Citi Bike accident due to an unpainted concrete wheel stop. He initially filed a notice of claim alleging the City's negligence in installing and maintaining the wheel stop. Later, he sought to amend his claim to include a 'design claim' (negligent infrastructure design) and a 'helmet claim' (negligent failure to provide helmets system-wide). The motion court denied the amendment. On appeal, the majority of the court denied the motion to amend but granted leave to file a late notice for both the design and helmet claims. Judge Andrias dissents in part, agreeing with the denial of the amendment and the granting of the design claim, but arguing that the helmet claim should not be granted due to lack of reasonable excuse for delay and the City's lack of actual prior notice.

Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLate Notice of ClaimAmendment of ClaimNegligenceDesign ClaimHelmet ClaimPersonal InjuryBicycle AccidentActual Notice
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

Claim of Utley v. General Motors Corp.

In September 1987, the claimant, a machine operator, suffered a compensable back and right knee injury. After initially receiving benefits and being classified as permanently partially disabled, the claimant sought reclassification as totally industrially disabled in 1995, effective from 1989. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted this, attributing 70% to the compensable injury and 30% to other conditions. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently amended this decision, ruling that the total industrial disability was not subject to apportionment. The employer appealed this amended decision. The court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported the classification of total industrial disability and that apportionment was unwarranted because the compensable injuries, not other medical issues, rendered the claimant unable to work.

total industrial disabilityapportionmentback injuryknee injurypermanent partial disabilityworkers' compensation benefitsvocational rehabilitationmedical limitationswork historyeducational background
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Dutton v. Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.

This case involved an amended judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning personal injury damages awarded to two construction workers. The judgment apportioned liability 20% against the general contractor and 80% against the subcontractor/employer. The court reviewed post-trial motions from the subcontractor to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim by the general contractor and motions from both parties to set aside future lost earnings awards as excessive. The court unanimously affirmed the amended judgment, finding the indemnification clause enforceable as it allowed for partial, not full, indemnification. The apportionment of liability was also upheld, supported by evidence of negligence from both the general contractor and the subcontractor. Additionally, the court found the awards for future lost earnings, including evidence of reasonably certain wage increases and application of CPLR 5041 (e) adjustment, to be proper.

Construction injuryPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLiability apportionmentLost earnings awardGeneral contractor negligenceSubcontractor negligenceIndemnification clause enforceabilityStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

Napolitano v. Corp.

The defendant DGM-I Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. The case involves a construction site accident where a worker sustained injuries after falling through a floor opening. The plaintiffs sought to add a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court's decision to allow the amendment was upheld on appeal, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or surprise from the delay. Furthermore, a prior order by Justice Colabella was not considered a bar to the amendment under the doctrine of law of the case.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Motion to AmendComplaintAppellate ReviewProcedural LawPrejudiceLaw of the CaseNew York
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,730 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