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

In re the Estate of Wilson

Dorothy S. Wilson, as executrix of the estate of Leonard R. Wilson, filed a petition for discovery against Lee Ford concerning the proceeds of Leonard R. Wilson's retirement plan, which named Ford as the beneficiary. Mr. Wilson died in 1985, having a vested benefit in the Corporate Profit Sharing Plan and Trust Agreement for Cobblestone Enterprises, Inc. The court considered the 1984 amendments to ERISA requiring a qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA) for surviving spouses. Despite the plan's amendment occurring after Mr. Wilson's death, a transition rule mandated the QPSA amendments be treated as in effect at the time of death. The court, citing no New York authority, concluded that given the Cobblestone plan was a 'defined benefit plan' and under the ERISA transition rule, Dorothy S. Wilson, as the surviving spouse, was entitled to the entire $8,643.38 proceeds of the retirement plan.

ERISARetirement PlanQualified Preretirement Survivor AnnuityQPSADefined Benefit PlanTransition RuleSurviving SpouseBeneficiary DisputeEstateProbate
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zajac v. Wilson

Plaintiffs, led by James Zajac, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing their complaint. The action sought damages for alleged medical malpractice and negligence by Dr. E. Robert Wilson during a series of independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the remaining medical malpractice cause of action was time-barred. Defendants successfully demonstrated that the action was commenced beyond the 2½-year statute of limitations, and plaintiffs failed to establish the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine, as Dr. Wilson conducted IMEs for workers' compensation purposes and did not provide continuous treatment for Zajac's injuries. The court also upheld the trial court's discretion in entertaining the defendants' delayed motion for summary judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceSummary JudgmentIndependent Medical ExaminationStatute of LimitationsContinuous Treatment DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAppellate DivisionTime-barredGood Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 1996

Wilson v. Gerstenzang, Weiner & Gerstenzang

This legal malpractice action concerned plaintiffs' claim that defendant Michael E. Mine negligently failed to timely commence an intentional tort action against Christopher Akers, who allegedly kicked plaintiff Leonard W. Wilson, Jr. Akers was a 50% shareholder of cav-ark Builders, Wilson's employer. Wilson disregarded Mine's advice and continued to accept workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Wilson's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits precluded him from pursuing a separate intentional tort claim against his employer, Akers. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the legal malpractice action lacked merit because the underlying action would not have succeeded.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIntentional TortStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityElection of RemediesAppellate ReviewAttorney NegligenceCivil Damages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2006

Wilson v. Sirius America Insurance

Stephen Wilson, a foreman for a plumbing subcontractor, was injured at a construction site and, along with his wife, sued the general contractor, K.J. Gold, LLC, for Labor Law violations. K.J. Gold's insurer, Sirius America Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage based on an exclusion requiring a prior written indemnification contract between K.J. Gold and the subcontractor, which was absent. After K.J. Gold defaulted in the underlying action, the Wilsons commenced a new action against Sirius America to recover the unsatisfied judgment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the Wilsons, deeming the exclusion void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the insurance exclusion itself did not violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, and since K.J. Gold never met the policy's condition of obtaining a written indemnification agreement, Sirius America was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Insurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification AgreementSummary Judgment AppealConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsPolicy ExclusionGeneral Obligations LawContract InterpretationAppellate ReversalThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04616
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2023

Wilson v. Bergon Constr. Corp.

William Wilson, a worker injured on a scaffold, sued Bergon Construction Corp. and other entities for personal injuries, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Wilson's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) but granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Wilson's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1), finding that the scaffold failed to provide adequate protection, which was a proximate cause of his injuries. The court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, concluding that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the work methods and that general supervisory authority is insufficient for liability.

Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 200Scaffold AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyProximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work Site
References
20
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07341 [200 AD3d 1466]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Wilson v. Tully Rinckey PLLC

Theresa Wilson (plaintiff) sued Tully Rinckey PLLC (defendant law firm) for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The malpractice claim arose from an unenforceable settlement agreement provision that was supposed to guarantee Wilson future employment, which she alleged the firm negligently handled and pressured her to sign. The breach of contract claim concerned allegedly excessive legal fees beyond their retainer agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, but Supreme Court denied the motion, also accepting plaintiff's late opposition papers due to counsel's medical reasons. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed Supreme Court's order, finding no error in accepting the late papers and concluding that the defendant had not conclusively refuted the plaintiff's claims for either legal malpractice or breach of contract.

Legal MalpracticeBreach of ContractMotion to DismissLate Opposition PapersAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementUnenforceable ProvisionLegal FeesRetainer AgreementCPLR 3211
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00435 [234 AD3d 945]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Gomez-Jimenez v. Wilson

Fausto Gomez-Jimenez, injured in Brooklyn while driving for his employer DRV Xpress, LLC, received New Jersey workers' compensation benefits. His vehicle was struck by Nyaisha Wilson. Wilson's insurer tendered its $25,000 policy limit, leading DRV's insurer, BerkleyNet Insurance Company, to place a subrogation lien on the settlement for the workers' compensation costs. The plaintiffs moved to vacate this lien, but the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that New Jersey law governs the reimbursement rights for benefits paid in New Jersey, thereby upholding BerkleyNet's subrogation lien.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSubrogation LienNew Jersey LawAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimInsurance ReimbursementPolicy LimitsEmployer's Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollock v. Wilson

The Supreme Court properly denied defendant David C. Wilson's motion to renew or vacate a prior order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court determined that the defendant failed to provide reasonable justification for introducing new facts on the motion to renew. Additionally, the defendant did not demonstrate any misrepresentation in plaintiff Paul A. Pollock's affidavit, which was crucial for the motion to vacate. The court also correctly struck the defendant's affirmative defense, which asserted that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. It was established that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant at the time of the accident, thus nullifying the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentMotion to RenewMotion to VacateMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Wilson

Petitioner Wayne Wilson filed a motion to vacate his conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and attempted possession with intent to distribute, alleging six instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. His claims included failure to move to suppress post-arrest statements, failure to formulate a trial strategy, failure to review and investigate evidence, failure to discuss a plea offer, failure to call certain witnesses, and failure to effectively cross-examine government witnesses. The Court, presided over by Judge William F. Kuntz, II, denied the motion in its entirety. The Court found that counsel's performance was not deficient under the Strickland standard for any of the claims and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. Additionally, the Court denied Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing, concluding it was unnecessary given the existing record.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255Motion to VacateCriminal ConvictionSixth AmendmentDrug ConspiracyMarijuana DistributionPlea BargainingTrial StrategyWitness Testimony
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,423 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