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
Jul 19, 2012

Lewis v. East Ramapo Central School District

This case concerns an appeal by the East Ramapo Central School District against an order that granted a petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court considered four factors for granting leave: actual knowledge of the claim by the school district, the petitioner's infancy and its nexus to the delay, a reasonable excuse for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the school district. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the 15-month delay after reaching the age of majority and did not demonstrate that the school district had timely actual knowledge of the claim or that it would not be substantially prejudiced by the three-year-and-eight-month delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e(5)School District LiabilityNegligent SupervisionInfancy ExcuseActual Knowledge RequirementSubstantial PrejudiceAppellate DivisionAssault in SchoolTimeliness of Claim
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Father & Natural Mother of An Adoptive Child v. Tolbert

Plaintiffs sought an extension of time to appeal a prior order that dismissed their complaint challenging New York state adoption statutes. Their counsel, Richard Steinbronn, was unexpectedly delayed abroad, preventing a timely filing of the appeal notice by the October 25, 1996 deadline. A motion for extension was filed on November 20, 1996. The Court granted the application, applying the three-factor test from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership to determine excusable neglect. The Court found the prejudice to the defendant slight, the delay short, and the reason for delay, despite some carelessness, fell within the scope of excusable neglect.

Extension of TimeNotice of AppealExcusable NeglectFederal Rules of Appellate ProcedureRule 4(a)(5)Pioneer FactorsAppellate ProcedureJudicial DiscretionTimelinessAttorney Conduct
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1999

McLaughlin v. North Colonie Central School District

Petitioner, an employee injured in July 1998 while working on a construction project owned by the respondent, moved in March 1999 to serve a late notice of claim, significantly past the 90-day statutory period. The Supreme Court denied this application. On appeal, the petitioner argued that his delay should be excused due to his unawareness of the severity of his injuries and the respondent's timely knowledge of the incident. However, the Appellate Division found no supporting affidavit from the petitioner or medical evidence, thus dismissing the excuse offered by counsel. The court also rejected the argument that the general contractor's knowledge could be imputed to the respondent, citing a lack of evidence of actual timely knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the motion was affirmed, as there was no viable excuse for the delay or proof of the respondent's timely actual knowledge.

Late notice of claimmunicipal liabilityconstruction site accidentactual knowledgeimputed knowledgejudicial discretionworkers' compensation claimpersonal injuryappealprocedural law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1979

In re the Claim of McEnaney v. Memorial Hospital

The claimant, a clinical instructor at Memorial Hospital, injured her back in December 1975 while lifting a patient. She sought medical attention in April 1976 and underwent a laminectomy in September 1976. She filed for compensation benefits in March 1977, more than 15 months after the injury, thus failing to give timely notice as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially excused the delay, finding notice was given as soon as the claimant had knowledge of the injury's nature and extent. A later amendment further excused the delay, stating the employer was not prejudiced because the claimant received prompt medical treatment and her medical records were accessible. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding no error in the board's conclusion that the claimant was not provided with a definite diagnosis initially, and that the employer was not prejudiced as medical records were available.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer PrejudiceMedical TreatmentBack InjuryLaminectomyNew York LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionExcused Delay
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00361 [124 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Williams v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center

The infant plaintiff alleged personal injuries resulting from a delayed transport by the City of New York's Emergency Medical Service during his mother's labor. Approximately four years after the alleged negligence, the plaintiff served a notice of claim and moved to have it deemed timely or for leave to serve a late notice. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the City's cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding that the City did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter. The court further determined that the plaintiff's delay substantially prejudiced the City's ability to defend the action and that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the significant delay, noting that infancy alone without a demonstrated nexus to the delay was insufficient.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawActual Knowledge RequirementPrejudice to MunicipalityReasonable Excuse for DelayInfancyPersonal InjuryMedical Malpractice AllegationAppellate ReviewMunicipal Negligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keegan v. Kraft, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board excused the claimant's failure to provide timely notice of injury within 30 days, as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18, despite a seven-month delay. The Board's determination was affirmed on appeal, finding substantial evidence that the employer was not prejudiced. This was supported by the claimant immediately seeking medical attention, ensuring the delay did not aggravate injuries, and the availability of all identified employee witnesses. The appellate court rejected the employer's argument that delayed notice precluded a contemporaneous medical examination, noting the employer's own inaction despite several opportunities to conduct an examination.

Notice of InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer PrejudiceMedical ExaminationDelayed ReportingWitness TestimonyBoard Decision AffirmedAppellate ReviewCausationDisability Benefits
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06580 [233 AD3d 963]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2024

Gilhuys v. Trovato

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment in a personal injury action. The defendant, Angela Trovato, failed to appear or answer the complaint, resulting in a default judgment for the plaintiff, Michelle Gilhuys. Trovato sought to vacate the judgment citing lack of jurisdiction under CPLR 5015(a)(4), excusable default under CPLR 5015(a)(1), and lack of timely personal notice under CPLR 317. The court found that service was properly effected, the defendant's excuse of insurance carrier delay was not a reasonable excuse for default, and she had received actual notice of the summons and complaint.

default judgmentpersonal injuryservice of processCPLR 317CPLR 5015(a)(1)CPLR 5015(a)(4)reasonable excusemeritorious defensejurisdictionappellate review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seemann v. Sterling Insurance

Plaintiff Seemann, while at work in New Jersey, injured a co-worker with a paintball. Four months later, advised by the co-worker's attorney, Seemann notified Sterling Insurance, his homeowner's insurer in Schoharie County. Sterling Insurance disclaimed coverage due to delayed notice. The Supreme Court found Seemann's belief of no coverage justifiable and his delay reasonable, obligating Sterling Insurance to defend and pay. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Seemann's good-faith belief that his homeowner's policy did not cover an off-premises incident was reasonable, and he acted diligently upon receiving the attorney's letter, thereby providing a reasonable excuse for the delay in notice.

Homeowner's InsuranceCoverage DisputeNotice RequirementsGood-Faith BeliefOff-Premises InjuryDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewReasonableness of DelayInsurance Policy InterpretationPaintball Incident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belmonte v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.

Salvatore Belmonte, a longshoreman, filed a negligence claim against Scindia Steam Navigation after an alleged fall in 1976. Belmonte faced significant delays in initiating the lawsuit, including suing the wrong parties and vessels, and serving the complaint well past the default period. Scindia moved to dismiss the claim based on the doctrine of laches, citing prejudice due to the extended delay and the inability to locate relevant crew members. The court, applying New York's three-year statute of limitations for personal injury, found Belmonte's excuses for the delays inadequate and the defendant's claims of prejudice convincing. Consequently, the District Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing Belmonte's suit.

LachesMaritime LawLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActNegligenceStatute of LimitationsPersonal InjuryMotion to DismissDiversity of CitizenshipService of ProcessPrejudice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dusharm v. Green Island Contracting, LLC

Claimant, a labor supervisor, allegedly sustained a work-related back injury in April 2006 but significantly delayed seeking medical treatment and applying for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, citing the claimant's failure to provide timely written notice to his employer as mandated by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Board, exercising its discretion, refused to excuse this lack of written notice, concluding that the employer was prejudiced by the delay due to inconsistencies in the claimant's statements and his extensive medical history. The Board considered factors like the delay in treatment, failure to initially mention the work injury to medical providers, a previous 20-year history of back pain, and failure to miss work for over a year. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding its exercise of discretion to be based on substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer PrejudiceBoard DiscretionOral NoticeBack InjuryAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaimant DelayMedical Treatment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,570 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