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. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Onondaga Commercial Dry Wall Corp. v. 150 Clinton Street, Inc.

This case concerns the conflict between two classes of claimants, lienors under Article 2 of the Lien Law and trust beneficiaries under Article 3-A (the United States and the State of New York with tax claims), over a $23,000 balance due from an owner on a contract for the construction of apartment buildings. The fund was deposited into court under Lien Law § 55 in prior lien foreclosure actions. The Special Term initially favored the lienors, denying the U.S.'s application to enjoin foreclosure, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the injunction and seemingly prioritizing tax claims. The Court of Appeals, interpreting the Lien Law, determined that Article 3-A provisions were intended to supplement, not supersede, older mechanic's lien provisions, especially regarding funds paid into court under section 55. The court held that such funds take the place of the property, making lien claims against them akin to claims against the property itself, which are not subject to tax claims under the statute. Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division's order and reinstated the Special Term's order, granting priority to the lienors.

Lien LawTrust FundMechanic's LiensTax ClaimsStatutory InterpretationFund PriorityForeclosure ActionsConstruction ContractArticle 2 Lien LawArticle 3-A Lien Law
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. 900983-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

Plaintiff Building Exterior Services Trust of New York (BEST), a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action against former members, including A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for unpaid monetary assessments levied in 2013 and 2014 to address a shortfall. Defendant A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint and a cross-claim, arguing that it ceased membership in 1994, was not bound by the 2000 Trust Documents, and that assessments could only be levied against current members, with any authority expiring in 2003. The Supreme Court, Albany County, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Trust Documents, specifically Section 4.8 of the Indemnity Agreement and Section 10.4 of the Declaration of Trust, could authorize assessments against former members for periods of participation. The court also rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that the breach-of-contract claim accrued when the defendant refused to pay the assessments.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insurance TrustUnpaid AssessmentsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeclaration of TrustIndemnity AgreementFormer MembersTrust Solvency
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. 17-09006
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2017

General Motors LLC v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)

Plaintiff General Motors LLC initiated an adversary proceeding against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and its trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that its state court action in Ohio against the Manville Trust was not enjoined by the channeling injunction from the Johns-Manville Corporation's chapter 11 reorganization plan. GM's Ohio action aimed to hold the Manville Trust liable under Ohio Revised Code § 4123.931 for an employee's widow's failure to notify GM of asbestos settlements. The court exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the Manville Trust's abstention arguments. It found that GM's claim against the Manville Trust, whether characterized as subrogation or contribution, constituted an "Other Asbestos Obligation" and was therefore explicitly barred by the Manville Plan's channeling injunction and the Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP). Consequently, the court enjoined GM from pursuing its Ohio Action against the Manville Trust.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcy InjunctionChanneling InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentManville TrustTrust Distribution ProceduresOhio LawSubrogation ClaimsContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation
References
26
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06050 [209 AD3d 1233]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Contractors Compensation Trust v. $49.99 Sewer Man, Inc.

Contractors Compensation Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued member Thos. H. Gannon & Sons, Inc. for unpaid deficit assessments. The defendant sought summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by a six-year statute of limitations, arguing the claim accrued upon the approval of the deficit assessment. Supreme Court partially denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the cause of action accrued when the defendant failed to make payments according to the established payment plan on March 3, 2014, rather than the earlier assessment approval date. Consequently, the Appellate Division concluded that the action, initiated in December 2019, was timely.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insured TrustStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeficit AssessmentPro Rata PaymentAccrual DateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird Department
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 17,985 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