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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
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

Acevedo v. City of New York

Petitioners, 110 New York City firefighters involved in World Trade Center rescue efforts after 9/11, sought permission to file late notices of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e due to toxin exposure and subsequent respiratory illnesses. The City of New York objected, citing improper joinder of claims and lack of reasonable excuse or actual notice. The court found that common questions of law and fact allowed for joinder of the claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts surrounding the claims due to public awareness, extensive investigations, and internal Fire Department medical examinations, thus suffering no prejudice from the delayed filing. Consequently, the petition was granted, allowing the firefighters to serve and file their late notices of claim.

World Trade Center9/11FirefightersLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawRespiratory IllnessToxic ExposureJoinder of ClaimsActual NoticePrejudice
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Felder v. City of New York

Barry Felder, a New York City police officer, sought to file a late notice of claim against the City for respiratory and other long-term health issues stemming from toxic exposure at the World Trade Center site in 2001, which became apparent in 2004. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted his petition to file a late notice of claim. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this judgment, ruling that the IAS court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because federal law, specifically the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (ATSSSA), preempts state-law claims for damages related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The appellate court vacated the prior disposition, stayed the state proceedings, and removed petitioners’ claims to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.

World Trade Center9/11 Victim Compensation FundFederal PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionLate Notice of ClaimStatute of LimitationsRespiratory InjuriesToxic ExposureRemoval to Federal CourtGround Zero
References
2
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
May 19, 1994

Seif v. City of New York

Petitioner Katherine Seif sought leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority after a slip and fall injury on ice in February 1993. Initially, she served the City of New York, but later claimed ignorance of the Housing Authority's ownership of the property, prompting her late claim application. The IAS Court granted her application, citing a valid excuse for the delay, but the Housing Authority appealed. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the petitioner's reason for delay amounted to law office failure and that the Housing Authority was prejudiced by the inability to timely investigate the alleged sidewalk defect. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding was dismissed.

Late Notice of ClaimSlip and FallPremises LiabilityMunicipal LiabilityNew York City Housing AuthorityLaw Office FailureJudicial DiscretionAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySidewalk Maintenance
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockwood v. City of Yonkers

The petitioner, a firefighter named Garret Lockwood, was injured during a training exercise for the City of Yonkers Fire Department in 2014, falling from a second-story window after a harness failed. His initial motion to file a late notice of claim was denied in 2014, as the court ruled his General Municipal Law § 207-a disability benefits were his exclusive remedy. Lockwood moved to renew his motion based on a 2016 Court of Appeals decision, Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, which changed the law regarding exclusive remedies. The court granted the renewal, finding it timely and the change in law applicable to the petitioner's situation. Subsequently, the court also granted the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, citing the respondent's actual knowledge of the incident and lack of prejudice due to the delay, despite the petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse.

Personal InjuryFirefighter InjuryLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExclusive Remedy DoctrineMotion to RenewChange in LawDisability BenefitsNegligence
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 753 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