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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03249
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hudson Excess Ins. Co.

This declaratory judgment action addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from an underlying personal injury claim. Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Mayer Malbin Realty I, LLC sought defense and indemnity from Hudson Excess Insurance Company for an injury sustained by a worker at a construction site. Although aware of potential coverage in October 2017, plaintiffs did not tender notice to Hudson until May 2020. Hudson subsequently disclaimed coverage due to this significant delay. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing Hudson was not prejudiced by the late notice, which hindered Hudson's ability to conduct a timely investigation.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageLate NoticePrejudice DefenseAdditional InsuredSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ActionConstruction Site AccidentSubcontractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies

This declaratory judgment action addresses the hierarchy of excess insurance policies in a situation where one policy is primary for owned vehicles but excess for non-owned, and the second is an umbrella policy covering multiple risks. The case stems from an accident involving a rented van, which led to a $650,000 settlement. After the primary insurer paid $500,000, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Co. each contributed $75,000, pending a determination of their respective excess coverage obligations. The Supreme Court initially ruled for ratable contribution. However, citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, the appellate court reversed, holding that Northbrook's umbrella policy constitutes a final tier of coverage, not required to contribute ratably with Chubb's excess policy. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Northbrook, entitling it to a $75,000 reimbursement from Chubb.

Excess InsuranceUmbrella InsuranceDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeAutomobile Liability InsuranceNon-Owned VehicleRatable ContributionFinal Tier CoverageSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kleehammer v. Monroe County

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Rodriguez v. McGinnis

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Section 1983 action against correctional officers McGinnis, Simmons, and Cook, alleging due process violations for an unwarranted 17-day keeplock confinement and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment due to excessive force by Officer Cook. Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended dismissing claims against McGinnis and Simmons entirely, dismissing the due process claim against Cook, and denying dismissal of the excessive force claim. District Judge Rakoff conducted a de novo review, agreeing that the 17-day keeplock did not constitute an "atypical and significant hardship" under Sandin v. Conner, thus granting dismissal of the due process claim. However, the allegations of Officer Cook kicking and stepping on the plaintiff's back while handcuffed were deemed sufficient to proceed with the excessive force claim, and Cook's qualified immunity defense was denied at the pleading stage for this claim. The Court adopted all recommendations.

Pro Se LitigationCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)Prisoner RightsExcessive ForceDue Process ClaimEighth AmendmentQualified ImmunityKeeplock ConfinementReport and RecommendationMemorandum Order
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. St. Barnabas Nursing Home

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Case No. ADJ793678 (OAK 0338326)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

ARMENDO CASAS vs. LOS ANGELES CHEMICAL and EXCESS SPECIALTY INSURANCE, GAB ROBINS, BRENNTAG and EXCESS SPECIALTY INSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Excess Specialty Insurance regarding a workers' compensation award. The original award found the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury ending November 2, 2006, but deferred key issues like sleep disorder, permanent disability, and liens. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case for a new decision at the trial level. The Board believes piecemeal adjudication should be avoided and all issues should be decided concurrently after further development of the record.

Cumulative traumaThoracic spineLumbar spinePsycheSleep disorderGastrointestinal disorderSexual dysfunctionPermanent disabilityEmployment Development Department lienPetition for Increase in Compensation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rolon v. Henneman

Plaintiff Dennis Rolon, a police officer, sued Sergeant Ari Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations for false disciplinary charges and testimony that led to his suspension. The court considered Moskowitz's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Rolon failed to state a claim for false testimony because Moskowitz's testimony was struck from the record and disbelieved. Additionally, Rolon's claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence failed because his Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, as he faced administrative rather than criminal charges, and suffered no deprivation of liberty, only property loss. Consequently, Moskowitz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Due processSection 1983False disciplinary chargesAbsolute immunityQualified immunityMalicious prosecutionFabrication of evidenceFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. 100559/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2020

State of N.Y. ex rel. Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.

This is a qui tam action brought by Edelweiss Fund, LLC on behalf of the State of New York against numerous financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The Relator alleges a fraudulent scheme involving the "robo-resetting" of interest rates for municipal Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs) and a conspiracy, in violation of the New York False Claims Act. Defendants, acting as remarketing agents, allegedly failed to set the lowest possible interest rates for VRDOs by using an algorithm and grouping unrelated bonds, thereby extracting excessive fees and benefiting their own money market funds. The court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficiently pleaded fraud and conspiracy under the NYFCA's heightened pleading standards. Additionally, M & T Bank Corporation's separate motion to dismiss was denied, as the court ruled that the NYFCA applies even to conduit bonds where government funds are involved, upholding a broad interpretation of the Act.

Qui Tam ActionFalse Claims ActNew York State Finance LawMunicipal BondsVariable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs)Interest Rate ManipulationRobo-Resetting SchemeFinancial InstitutionsRemarketing AgentsConspiracy
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowles v. New York

Plaintiff Tony Bowles filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, verbal harassment, and excessive force against the State of New York, Riverbank State Park, and Officer J. Hardison. Bowles claimed harassment and verbal abuse in Riverbank State Park by Officer Hardison, leading to an arrest on October 15, 1997, where he was allegedly pushed and shoved. He was issued two summonses for disorderly conduct, one dismissed and the other adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the State of New York and that Riverbank State Park is not a "person" under § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing claims against the State and Park due to immunity and lack of "person" status, respectively, and also dismissing false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and verbal harassment claims for various legal reasons.

42 U.S.C. § 1983False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionExcessive ForceVerbal HarassmentEleventh Amendment ImmunityPro Se LitigationJudgment on the PleadingsDisorderly ConductAdjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD)
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 1,225 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