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 08, 2009

D'Elia v. City of New York

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1999

Hassan v. Schweizer

Plaintiff, a 15-year-old, suffered severe hand injuries in 1985 while working at a sawmill owned by defendant Henry Schweizer. Plaintiff initiated a negligence lawsuit in 1990, alleging he was an employee and defendant failed to provide workers' compensation. Defendant denied this, asserting plaintiff was a trespasser, but later sought to amend his answer to claim workers' compensation as an exclusive remedy, an argument he knew about for years but intentionally suppressed. Plaintiff cross-moved to amend his complaint to include Labor Law § 133 violations and for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied all motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of both parties' motions, citing defendant's undue delay and prejudice, and finding plaintiff's complaint amendment unnecessary as Labor Law violations could be supported via the bill of particulars. It also denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion, stating proximate cause remained a factual issue.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ClaimAmended PleadingsCross AppealsUndue DelayPrejudiceLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionProximate Cause
References
11
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01315 [236 AD3d 465]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2025

Goldman v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Valerie Goldman was struck by a fence adjacent to a construction site. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion to amend the bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion to amend the bill of particulars to include violations of Industrial Code § 23-1.33 (a) (1)-(3) and (b) (1) (i), citing factual inconsistencies regarding the cause of the fence's movement. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.33 (d) (1), deeming it inapplicable.

Construction AccidentPedestrian InjurySummary Judgment MotionBill of Particulars AmendmentIndustrial Code ViolationsAppellate Division DecisionFactual DisputesNegligence ClaimWorksite SafetyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1997

Thompson v. Ludovico

The plaintiff appealed an order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing causes of action under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars. The court affirmed the order, reasoning that the plaintiff's injury, sustained when a truck crane's boom slipped and crushed his arm, was not an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) but a usual and ordinary construction site danger. Furthermore, the denial of leave to amend the bill of particulars was upheld due to the plaintiff's gross laches, as more than five years elapsed without explanation. Additionally, the Industrial Code sections cited in the proposed amendment were deemed either general safety standards or inapplicable to the case, further supporting the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentBill of ParticularsAmendmentLachesIndustrial CodeElevation-Related Risk
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1996

Roman v. 1185 Avenue of the Americas Associates

This case involves an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff, Victor Roman, leave to amend his bill of particulars to include additional injuries. Roman filed an action in 1989 for injuries sustained in a 1987 job site accident, initially alleging traumatic degenerative arthritis and torn muscles in his left hip. After undergoing hip replacement surgeries in 1992 and 1994, a stipulation was made in 1994 with defendant A.J. Contracting Co., allowing for further discovery if the hip surgeries were later alleged to be causally related. In 1996, Roman moved to amend his bill of particulars to include these surgeries, supported by proof of workers' compensation coverage due to the causal connection. The court granted this motion, and the appellate court affirmed, citing the policy of freely allowing amendments in the absence of prejudice, which the defendants failed to demonstrate.

Personal injurySlip and fallConstruction accidentHip replacementBill of particularsLeave to amendStipulationCausal connectionWorkers' compensationPrejudice
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2012

Madison v. Sama

This case involves a medical malpractice action where the defendants sought to preclude the plaintiff from presenting evidence on new theories of liability. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the denial of the defendants' preclusion motion. Previously, a motion for further deposition of the defendant doctor on a new theory of excessive blood loss was granted by the motion court, which also directed an amended bill of particulars. However, that prior decision was reversed on appeal because the plaintiff did not establish 'unusual or unanticipated circumstances' for further discovery. The current decision clarified that the prior appellate order did not determine the propriety of the motion court’s sua sponte directive for an amended bill of particulars, thus not mandating preclusion under the law of the case doctrine. The court also found no improvident exercise of authority in deferring to the trial court for expert testimony limitations.

Medical MalpracticePreclusion MotionLaw of the Case DoctrineFurther DiscoveryAmended Bill of ParticularsExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSupreme Court OrderCivil ProcedureDenial of Motion
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00983 [213 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Castano v. Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Nick Castano, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, in his personal injury action against Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, and Henkels & McCoy, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations. Castano sustained injuries while working on a pipeline project when a heavy pipe allegedly struck his leg. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied Castano's cross-motions for summary judgment and to amend his bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granting Castano leave to amend his bill of particulars. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Castano's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, noting the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation and the adequacy of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskPipeline ProjectIndustrial CodePleading Amendment
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04124
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Kauffman v. Turner Constr. Co.

Craig Kauffman, a labor shop steward, suffered hearing loss at a construction site in 2012 while operating equipment without proper protection and subsequently sued Turner Construction Company, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars. However, after the note of issue was vacated, the plaintiff successfully amended his bill of particulars to include vicarious liability against Turner Construction Company as a joint venture partner. The Supreme Court then granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) regulations cited were either inapplicable or lacked specificity, and that Turner Construction Company lacked the necessary supervisory control over Kauffman's work to be held liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentHearing LossLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityJoint VentureAppellate ReviewSafe Place to Work
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 6,264 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