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 08, 2000

Goldberg v. Lorusso

Joel Goldberg, a realtor, sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a German Shepard named Lupo at the home of Robert and Rose LoRusso, which he was attempting to preview for sale. Despite a "Beware of Dog" sign, the property listing indicated the dog would be secured, yet Lupo was unrestrained due to a communication lapse. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no prior vicious propensities from the dog. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating Goldberg's complaint. The court ruled that a factual issue existed regarding the foreseeability of danger posed by an unrestrained dog in a house listed for public viewing by unaccompanied realtors, noting that the defendants usually secured the dog, indicating their awareness of potential issues.

Dog attackPersonal injuryNegligencePremises liabilityProperty owner liabilitySummary judgmentForeseeabilityRealtor injuryGerman ShepardAppellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Corcoran

Donald D. Goldberg, an orthopedic surgeon, challenged the constitutionality of New York Insurance Law § 5108, which limits the fees health service providers can charge under the 'no-fault' motor vehicle insurance act. Goldberg argued the law violated due process, was vague, denied equal protection, and impaired contract rights. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, and this court reviewed the decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims brought on behalf of the fictitious 'John Doe' but found Goldberg's individual claims justiciable. The court ultimately declared Insurance Law § 5108 constitutional, ruling that the fee limitations are a valid exercise of the state's police power aimed at controlling no-fault insurance premiums and are reasonably related to a legitimate state objective. The court concluded that the statute does not infringe upon due process, contract rights, equal protection, or privacy, and modified the judgment to reflect this declaration.

Insurance Law § 5108no-fault insurancemedical fee scheduleconstitutional challengedue processequal protectionright to contractvagueness doctrineprivacy rightsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Binyan Shel Chessed, Inc. v. Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for negligence and a declaration that Colonial Cooperative Insurance Co. must defend and indemnify them for a 1999 incident involving Abraham Katz. The dispute arose after Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc., American Building Corporation's broker, issued a certificate implying Colonial liability coverage for the plaintiff, which Colonial denied, stating no such policy existed. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions by both Colonial and Goldberger, deeming them premature. On appeal, the court granted Colonial's motion, dismissing the complaint against it, but affirmed the denial of Goldberger's motion, finding further discovery necessary to address potential fraud concerns regarding the insurance certificate.

NegligenceInsurance LawSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsurancePrivity of ContractFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredIndemnification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Village of Spring Valley

Plaintiffs Irving M. Goldberg, Stuart E. Goldberg, and Hyman Cohen, all former employees of the Village of Spring Valley or its Urban Renewal Agency (SVURA), were terminated after actively supporting opposition candidates in a Democratic primary election. They initiated this action, presumably under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging their dismissals were solely for political reasons and violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeking reinstatement or damages. Defendants, including Mayor Joel Rosenthal and individual trustees, contended the terminations were part of a legitimate governmental reorganization to create a more efficient housing authority and consolidate functions, particularly due to the cessation of federal funding for SVURA. The court, applying legal precedents from Elrod v. Burns and Nekolny v. Painter, found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that political motivation was the sole or motivating factor in their dismissals. Conversely, the defendants adequately demonstrated that the terminations would have occurred irrespective of the plaintiffs' political activities, citing the valid reorganization and dismantlement of SVURA. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were not abridged and granted judgment on the merits in favor of the defendants.

Political DismissalFirst Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsPublic EmploymentPatronage FiringsGovernment ReorganizationUrban Renewal AgencyVillage AttorneyFreedom of AssociationDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Touche Ross & Co.

In this consolidated class action, Touche Ross & Co., as assignee of claims from the Goldberg action, moved for summary judgment against Theodor H. Kaufman, Benjamin Lieberman, and Jack Shapiro. The litigation originated from allegedly fraudulent financial statements issued by Giant Stores Corp. for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, which Touche Ross had certified as Giant's auditor. Shapiro, an officer and director of Giant, was previously convicted of fraud related to these statements. The court addressed Shapiro's arguments against Touche Ross's motion, including claims of impermissible indemnity and factual disputes regarding causation and damages. The court emphasized a strong public policy against indemnity in securities fraud cases and denied Touche Ross's motion, suggesting that contribution from nonsettling defendants might be an alternative remedy.

Securities FraudClass ActionSummary Judgment MotionIndemnityContributionCorporate OfficersFinancial Statements FraudAuditor LiabilityBankruptcy ActSEC Investigation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2007

Guzman v. 4030 Bronx Boulevard Associates L.L.C.

This appeal concerns the preclusion of expert testimony from a neuropsychologist, Dr. Elkhonon Goldberg, regarding the causation of infant plaintiff Tyrone Guzman's neurological deficits. The plaintiff has a history of multiple head traumas, and the lawsuit stems from alleged injuries sustained during a bathroom ceiling collapse. The trial court precluded Dr. Goldberg's testimony due to a lack of objective medical foundation to establish that the June 2001 incident was the proximate cause, subsequently dismissing the complaint. The appellate court agreed with the preclusion of testimony on causation but found an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance to allow plaintiffs to secure another medical expert. The matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Expert TestimonyNeuropsychologyTraumatic Brain InjuryCausationMotion in LimineContinuanceAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary StandardPersonal InjuryHead Trauma
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Edson

The plaintiffs appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The first order, dated January 5, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland, dismissing the complaint against them regarding claims of legal and medical malpractice. The second order, dated January 23, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendant Elizabeth O’Connor, dismissing the complaint against her for legal malpractice. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that Edson and the County were immune from liability under Social Services Law § 419 for reporting suspected child abuse and removing a child, and that O’Connor was not negligent in her legal services.

Legal MalpracticeMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentChild Abuse ReportingSocial Services LawImmunityMandated ReportersAppellate ReviewGood FaithNegligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

James v. Goldberg

This dissenting opinion argues against the court's conclusion regarding public assistance programs for dependent children. Judge MeLEAN contends that welfare worker visits to homes are for assistance, not searches, and thus should not be considered 'unreasonable searches.' He criticizes the notion of requiring a warrant, arguing it either undermines the program's purpose or becomes a mere formality that introduces hostility into crucial welfare worker-mother relationships. The judge distinguishes prior search cases like Camara and See, asserting they do not mandate the court's current ruling, which he believes negatively impacts social welfare administration. He would deny the motion and dismiss the action.

Public AssistanceDependent ChildrenWelfare ProgramsFourth AmendmentUnreasonable SearchWarrant RequirementHome VisitsSocial Welfare LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Goldberg

The petitioner, a Hospital Care Investigator with 19 years of satisfactory service in the City of New York, was reassigned after failing a promotional exam. She refused the reassignment, insisting on remaining at Bronx Municipal Hospital, and filed a grievance. Consequently, she was suspended and later terminated for her intransigence. A hearing officer found her conduct ill-advised but recommended a second chance and that the suspension serve as penalty, with dismissal only upon continued refusal. The court found the dismissal unduly harsh given her long service and lack of heinous offense, modifying the decision to a nine-month suspension without pay, conditioned on her acceptance of reassignment, with dismissal as a consequence if she refuses.

employee misconductinsubordinationpublic employmentreassignmentdisciplinary actionsuspensionterminationjudicial reviewArticle 78undue harshness
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Kroeger

This is an opinion of the Court of Appeals. The court reviewed submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals. The order from the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs, based on the reasons stated in the Appellate Division's memorandum. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Meyer concurred with the decision.

Court of AppealsAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedProcedural ReviewLegal ProcedureJudicial ConcurrenceRules of CourtDecision MakingCosts AwardedMemorandum Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 22 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