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

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colarossi v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal, and the motion was subsequently denied. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's reliance on law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish that the City had actual notice of the essential facts within the mandated 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter, as a Workers’ Compensation Board C-3 form provided by the employer did not link the incident to any claim against the City. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the City remained unprejudiced by the significant delay, particularly given the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition.

Late Notice of ClaimLaw Office FailureActual NoticePrejudiceWorkers' Compensation Board FormC-3 FormMunicipal LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antine v. City of New York

This case consolidates 13 separate 9/11-related applications seeking leave to serve late notices of claim against the City of New York. Petitioners allege exposure to toxic substances during rescue, recovery, construction, and demolition operations at Ground Zero. The court addresses significant questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations under the ATSSSA (Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001), and the commencement of proceedings by filing. Ultimately, the court grants the petitioners' applications, allowing them to serve late notices of claim, deeming them timely served nunc pro tunc, despite jurisdictional ambiguities which are reserved for the federal court.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimstatute of limitationssubject matter jurisdictionfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawCPLRspecial proceedingsWorld Trade Center
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. New York City Housing Authority

The petitioner, a diabetic, sought leave to serve a late notice of claim after sustaining an injury from a metal wire allegedly left by the respondent's workers. The incident occurred in February 1990, following repairs in late 1989. The petitioner sought medical attention and was hospitalized. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application to serve a late notice of claim. The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing substantial prejudice to the respondent due to lack of timely knowledge regarding the alleged negligence and injury.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawPrejudiceTimely NoticeAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryMedical TreatmentDenied ApplicationKings CountySubstantial Prejudice
References
4
Case No. ADJ7944481
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

IGNACIO PAZ vs. BENIHANA, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES

In this workers' compensation case, multiple lien claimants' liens were dismissed for failure to pay the required activation fee or appear at a lien conference. Their attorney claimed they lacked notice of the conference, but evidence indicates their representative initiated the conference and was served with notice. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to consider sanctions against the attorney for filing a petition for reconsideration that appears indisputably without merit, potentially based on misrepresentation or failure to investigate facts. The Board intends to impose sanctions on the attorney for alleged bad faith actions under Labor Code Section 5813.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Declaration of ReadinessNotice of Hearinglien conferencepetition for reconsiderationbad faith actionfrivolous petitiondue process violation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1985

Albanese v. Village of Floral Park

The petitioners, Vito Albanese, Jr. (an infant claimant) and his father Vito Albanese, Sr., appealed from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning their application to serve a late notice of claim against the Village of Floral Park and its Fire and Police Department. The infant suffered severe brain damage after a suicide attempt, and petitioners alleged negligence in rescue efforts. The Supreme Court denied their initial application and a subsequent motion for renewal and reargument, citing the lack of excuse for the delay and prejudice to the respondents. The appellate court affirmed the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim, finding that while renewal and reargument should have been granted, the original determination to deny the application was correctly adhered to due to the unjustified delay and lack of a demonstrated nexus between the alleged negligence and the injury.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eInfancy DisabilityDiscretionary DenialGovernmental ImmunityNegligence AllegationsBrain DamageRescue EffortsPrejudice to DefendantTimeliness Requirement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1997

Mark v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, an order which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial. The petitioners failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for their almost six-month delay beyond the 90-day statutorily-prescribed period. Additionally, the petitioners did not provide the respondents with actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within the required timeframe. The court noted that the conditions at the accident scene changed to the prejudice of the respondents, preventing their own investigation, and the ladder involved was allegedly discarded immediately after the incident. Filing a Workers’ Compensation claim was also deemed insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e.

late notice of claimjudicial discretionactual noticeprejudice to respondentchanged conditionsWorkers’ Compensation claimappellate reviewstatutory periodKings Countymunicipal liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brito v. City of New York

The petitioner appealed an order denying leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court's denial was affirmed on appeal because the petitioner's excuses for the nine-month delay (belief in Workers' Compensation as sole remedy and unawareness of other recovery options) were deemed insufficient. Additionally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondents had timely knowledge of the accident, which are crucial factors in evaluating late notice of claim applications. The appellate court found no improvidence in the lower court's decision.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawActual KnowledgeReasonable ExcusePrejudiceWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewDenial of ApplicationSupreme CourtKings County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruzzese v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which had granted a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The appellate court reversed this order, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their delay, rejecting their assertions of misunderstanding workers' compensation versus personal injury claims and a mistaken belief that their attorney would automatically handle the latter. Additionally, the petitioners did not establish that the City of New York acquired actual knowledge of the claim's essential facts within the statutory 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the City was not prejudiced by the delay in receiving notice of the specific facts of the claim.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation DistinctionActual Knowledge RequirementPrejudice ArgumentAppellate ProcedureDiscretionary RulingPersonal Injury ActionCity of New YorkRichmond County
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jensen v. City of Saratoga Springs

This case is an appeal regarding the denial of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner was injured in a fall on ice and snow in Saratoga Springs and sought to file a late claim against the city. The Supreme Court denied the application, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The court found no abuse of discretion, citing the attorney's mistaken assumption of liability, lack of proof of petitioner's incapacitation, and the city's insufficient actual notice of the claim due to a vague location description. Therefore, the order denying the application was affirmed.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eAbuse of discretionActual knowledge requirementLaw office failureIncapacitation defenseSidewalk fall liabilityMunicipal negligencePersonal injurySufficiency of notice
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 8,931 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