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

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
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
Sep 27, 1990

Bruce Coopersmith v. County of Greene

Petitioner appealed the Supreme Court's denial of their application to serve a late notice of claim against the respondent, nearly a year after an accident. The appellate court noted that the respondent did not have actual notice of the claim until the motion was made. The petitioner's stated reasons for the delay, which included a belief that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy and a lack of knowledge regarding the respondent's ownership of the premises, were deemed insufficient to excuse the delay. The Supreme Court's denial of the motion was affirmed, with the appellate court finding no abuse of discretion.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' CompensationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewMunicipal LiabilityTimelinessActual Notice
References
4
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
Apr 27, 1984

Annis v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioner Nicholas Annis, injured in a June 1983 subway derailment, sought to serve a late notice of claim against the Transit Authority after his initial notice was two days past the 90-day period and subsequently disallowed. The Supreme Court initially denied both the application and a motion to renew. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The appellate court found it an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave, noting the Transit Authority's actual knowledge of the widespread accident and the lack of prejudice from the minimal delay. The petitioner's delay in filing was attributed to his initial belief that his injury was minor, which later worsened, prompting him to retain counsel.

Late Notice of ClaimSubway DerailmentGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eJudicial DiscretionActual Knowledge DoctrinePrejudice AssessmentMotion to RenewPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Halloran v. City of New York

The petitioner, a police officer, sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York for injuries sustained from toxic substance exposure during World Trade Center rescue and recovery operations. The court evaluated the reasonableness of the petitioner's delay in filing, the City's actual knowledge of the claim, and any potential prejudice to the City. It was determined that the petitioner had a reasonable excuse for the delay, attributed to the gradual manifestation of symptoms, and that the City possessed sufficient actual knowledge due to the widespread awareness of WTC-related health issues. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice to the City's ability to investigate the claim. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the notice of claim was deemed timely filed.

World Trade CenterToxic ExposureLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficerRespiratory Illness9/11Municipal LiabilitySpecial ProceedingInjury Claim
References
5
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
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

Matter of Johnson v. T.L. Cannon Management

Claimant, a broiler cook, allegedly sustained a work-related injury in February 2012 but delayed applying for workers' compensation benefits until April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, citing claimant's failure to provide timely notice to the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Court upheld the Board's determination, finding no grounds to overturn it. The Court emphasized the requirement for timely written notice of injury within 30 days, noting that while exceptions exist, excusing such failures remains within the Board's discretion, and the 14-month delay, coupled with the supervisor's lack of recall regarding an injury report, supported the Board's findings.

Workers’ CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident ReportingCredibility DeterminationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimAdministrative AppealWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,142 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