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
Jun 20, 2002

Hynes v. Start Elevator, Inc.

A former employee and his wife sued Start Elevator after the employee was injured in an elevator accident. Start Elevator then filed third-party complaints against 410-57th Corp., the building owner and employer, and Carmela Maresca, the managing agent. The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers' compensation settlement barred the third-party actions and that Maresca was a coemployee. Start Elevator cross-moved to amend its complaint for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment and granted leave to amend. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants, dismissing the third-party complaints, and denying Start Elevator's cross-motion for leave to amend, finding no grave injury and insufficient basis for contractual indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ActionsContractual IndemnificationElevator AccidentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCoemployee ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionLeave to Amend PleadingsRes Judicata / Estoppel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Higgins v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Aaron Higgins, a former employee of NYP Holdings, Inc., moved to amend his complaint, which alleged racial and religious discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Defendant NYP cross-moved for sanctions. The Court denied most of Higgins's proposed amendments, citing the election of remedies doctrine for state and city human rights law claims, and finding that religious discrimination claims and most FMLA claims lacked sufficient pleading or were untimely. However, the Court granted leave to amend one FMLA retaliation claim related to leave taken for his daughter's hospitalization. The defendant's cross-motion for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel was denied, as the Court found the arguments, though largely unsuccessful, to be colorable.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationFMLATitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to AmendSanctions
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Corwin v. City of New York

Ronald Corwin was injured in a Citi Bike accident due to an unpainted concrete wheel stop. He initially filed a notice of claim alleging the City's negligence in installing and maintaining the wheel stop. Later, he sought to amend his claim to include a 'design claim' (negligent infrastructure design) and a 'helmet claim' (negligent failure to provide helmets system-wide). The motion court denied the amendment. On appeal, the majority of the court denied the motion to amend but granted leave to file a late notice for both the design and helmet claims. Judge Andrias dissents in part, agreeing with the denial of the amendment and the granting of the design claim, but arguing that the helmet claim should not be granted due to lack of reasonable excuse for delay and the City's lack of actual prior notice.

Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLate Notice of ClaimAmendment of ClaimNegligenceDesign ClaimHelmet ClaimPersonal InjuryBicycle AccidentActual Notice
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. University of Texas Medical Branch

This case involves seven plaintiffs who sued the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and Leon Clements, alleging employment discrimination based on gender, race, age, and disability, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, and arguing that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing with prejudice all claims against UTMB and Clements, including those under Title VII (age, punitive damages), §§ 1981 and 1983, ADA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their pleading was also denied, leaving only certain Title VII claims for further proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimsFirst Amendment RightsSovereign ImmunityQualified ImmunityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1983 ClaimsADA ClaimsAge Discrimination in Employment Act
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

Napolitano v. Corp.

The defendant DGM-I Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. The case involves a construction site accident where a worker sustained injuries after falling through a floor opening. The plaintiffs sought to add a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court's decision to allow the amendment was upheld on appeal, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or surprise from the delay. Furthermore, a prior order by Justice Colabella was not considered a bar to the amendment under the doctrine of law of the case.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Motion to AmendComplaintAppellate ReviewProcedural LawPrejudiceLaw of the CaseNew York
References
4
Case No. 09-11893
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. Estate of Mendelow (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)

This memorandum decision addresses a motion by Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), seeking leave to amend a complaint against Steven B. Mendelow and other defendants to recover fraudulent transfers. The Trustee's original complaint, filed in 2010, alleged that Mendelow knew or should have known about Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The court outlines the history of the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, Mendelow's role as a sophisticated investor and operator of feeder funds like Telfran, and how he allegedly received guaranteed returns and fictitious profits (Extra P&L) from BLMIS. The decision discusses the impact of evolving pleading standards and the applicability of the Section 546(e) safe harbor on the Trustee's claims. Despite objections from the defendants regarding undue delay and prejudice due to the deaths of key witnesses (Frank DiPascali and Steven B. Mendelow), the court grants the motion to amend, finding that the Trustee's proposed amendment plausibly alleges Mendelow's actual knowledge of the fraud and that this knowledge can be imputed to the other defendants through agency relationships. However, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks to recover transfers predating January 1, 2001, when BLMIS was formed as a limited liability company. Claims against subsequent transferees are dismissed without prejudice.

SIPA liquidationPonzi schemefraudulent transfersmotion to amend complaintactual knowledgeagency relationshipfeeder fundsfictitious profitssecurities law violationsbankruptcy trustee
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2006

Beja v. Ford

The plaintiff, a former employee, initiated an action against Meadowbrook Ford d/b/a Syosset Ford and Steven Weiss for wrongful termination and personal injuries. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, while the plaintiff cross-moved to amend it. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding the plaintiff's allegations insufficient to state a cause of action or barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationEmployment LawMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintVicarious LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate ProcedureCPLR 3211CPLR 3025
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc.

Plaintiff Wanda Guilbeaux sued Defendant 3927 Foundation after injuring her back while employed as a nurse's aide. Guilbeaux initially filed in state court, alleging negligence, but later amended her petition to include claims of breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing related to an employee benefit plan. The Foundation removed the case to federal court, arguing that Guilbeaux's claims were preempted by ERISA. The court denied the Foundation's motion to strike Guilbeaux's untimely response. However, the court granted the Foundation's motion to dismiss Guilbeaux's state law claims, finding them preempted by ERISA. Finally, the court granted Guilbeaux's alternative motion for leave to amend her pleadings to specifically allege claims under ERISA.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Benefit PlanMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeLeave to AmendState Law ClaimsFederal Question JurisdictionBreach of ContractBreach of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation Laws
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 5,527 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