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
Aug 12, 2004

Quintas v. Pace University

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against a university. The plaintiff had sought damages based on contract, tort, and retaliation theories after being denied a distinguished professorship. The court found these claims were time-barred, as they should have been brought under CPLR article 78, which has a four-month statute of limitations. Furthermore, the negligence claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law, and the retaliation claim lacked sufficient connection to protected conduct. The age discrimination claim also failed as the university's requirements were age-neutral and the denial was also based on the plaintiff's teaching performance. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's remaining arguments.

Employment LawAge DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissProfessorship DenialContract ClaimsTort ClaimsCPLR Article 78
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witko v. State of New York

Claimants Richard and Sally Witko appealed the denial of their application to file a late notice of claim against the State of New York and the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Richard Witko was injured in a bicycle accident involving dogs, one of which belonged to a State Police Trooper. The Court of Claims initially denied the application due to weak factual allegations, lack of excuse for delay, insufficient notice to the State, and the availability of an alternative remedy. The motion for reconsideration, which included new deposition details, was also denied as it did not bolster the claim's merit. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of excuse, insufficient notice, the alternative remedy, and the claim's lack of apparent merit, especially after evidence suggested the State's dog was not involved in the actual collision.

Late Notice of ClaimCourt of Claims ActPersonal InjuryBicycle AccidentDog AttackState PoliceSovereign ImmunityNotice to StateAppearance of MeritMotion for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boakye-Yiadom v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's denial of three motions: leave to reargue/renew opposition to dismissal, leave to serve a late notice of claim, and leave to amend the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning the motion to reargue, citing non-appealability. It affirmed the denial of the motion to renew, finding the plaintiff failed to justify the delay in presenting new facts. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for a late notice of claim due to lack of timely service. Consequently, the denial of the motion to amend the complaint was also affirmed, as proposed amendments would be without merit given the untimely notice of claim.

AppealMotion PracticeReargumentRenewalLate Notice of ClaimAmendment of PleadingsCPLREducation LawGeneral Municipal LawProcedural Dismissal
References
11
Case No. 2016-263 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee, appealed an order denying its summary judgment motion and granting Allstate Insurance Company's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion but reversing the grant of the defendant's cross-motion. The court ruled that Allstate failed to establish timely mailing of its denial of claim forms, thus precluding its defense. However, the plaintiff also failed to prove that the claims were not timely denied or that the denials were without merit, leading to the proper denial of its summary judgment motion.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate TermInsurance DefenseDenial of ClaimTimely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAssignee ClaimCivil Court OrderAffidavit Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christine's Shoes Corp. v. 251 Main Street Corp.

The case involved a joined action where a tenant sought to enjoin 251 Main Street Corporation from performing renovations, and 251 Main Street Corporation initiated a holdover proceeding. 251 Main Street Corporation appealed the Supreme Court, Suffolk County's denial of its motion for summary judgment in the holdover proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that although the landlord had renovation rights, these could not disregard the tenant's retail business. The court found that factual questions remained regarding the tenant's allowance of reasonable access to construction workers and whether a lease default occurred. It also clarified that the preliminary injunction denial was not a merits determination and the tenant's failure to seek a Yellowstone injunction meant the notice to cure period was not tolled.

Landlord-Tenant LawSummary Judgment MotionHoldover ProceedingInjunctive ReliefCommercial Lease DisputesProperty Renovation RightsContractual InterpretationFactual DisputeAppellate AffirmanceYellowstone Injunction
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03856 [172 AD3d 1658]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch.

The case involves Guy Cozzi, who appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of his application to reopen his workers' compensation claim. Cozzi had previously filed a claim related to the World Trade Center cleanup operations, which was denied as untimely and not meeting the criteria for the exception under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Board affirmed the initial denial, and the Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of reconsideration. In 2017, Cozzi applied to reopen the claim, citing additional voluntary activities at the site. The Board denied the reopening application, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the claim was disallowed after a trial on the merits and more than seven years had passed since the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsClaim ReopeningJurisdictionTimelinessBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
11
Case No. 2016-1458 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2018

Pavlova v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding first-party no-fault benefits sought by Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as assignee of Cosby Reavis, against Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court had denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing claims for services billed under CPT code 20999, arguing plaintiff was not entitled to payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term modified the Civil Court's order, finding that Allstate's denial of claims for CPT code 20999 was without merit because the insurer failed to request additional documentation as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b) for "By Report" codes. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, noting the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that claims were not timely denied or that denials were conclusory. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination on the medical necessity of the CPT code 20999 services, a ground not previously addressed.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate TermCPT Code 20999Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleMedical NecessityClaim DenialVerification Request11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b)Insurance Law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,049 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