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

Spano v. N. v. Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland

This case concerns a longshoreman's personal injury action against a shipowner, which resulted in a $6,000 jury verdict. A key issue arose regarding the distribution of these proceeds, specifically the priority between a compensation lien held by Northern Assurance Company of America, totaling $6,691.38, and a $1,500 attorney's fee claimed by the plaintiff's counsel. The court affirmed that the compensation lien took priority over the attorney's fee, especially since the verdict amount was less than the compensation benefits already paid. Consequently, the motions by the shipowner and the stevedoring company's carrier to deposit the funds and satisfy the lien were granted. The plaintiff's counsel's motion for an attorney's fee was denied, as the attorney's efforts did not result in an excess recovery for the client beyond the already compensated benefits.

longshoremanpersonal injurycompensation lienattorney's feessubrogationmaritime lawverdict distributionfederal courtworkers' compensationjudgment satisfaction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Williams v. Brentwood Wholesale, Inc.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 6, 1998. The order had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order and judgment, concurring with the Supreme Court's decision. The basis for the affirmation was that the plaintiff's personal injury cause of action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, citing the precedent set in Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyDamagesDismissalSupreme CourtProcedural History
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogilvie v. McDonald's Corp.

In an appeal concerning an action for personal injuries, the court reviewed orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellate court modified an order dated April 12, 2001, by denying the plaintiffs' motion to add Richard Yandoli as a defendant and granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against Thurman Lee Foods, Inc., Yandoli Foods, Inc., and Yandoli Foods, Inc.—National Store No. 11542, primarily due to the workers’ compensation defense. Additionally, the court affirmed an order dated July 23, 2001, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the defendants’ attorneys, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and the motion's lack of merit. The decision highlighted that the proposed amendment to add Yandoli was legally insufficient, and the Yandoli corporate defendants were not established at the time of the incident.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to Amend ComplaintDisqualification of CounselAppellate ReviewCorporate LiabilityStandingFiduciary DutyPleadings
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malburg v. Keller

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the Supreme Court granted this motion, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the court modified the order by denying the motion in part. It reinstated the amended complaint concerning the significant limitation of use category of serious injury for the plaintiff's cervical spine injury. This modification was based on an independent medical examination report establishing a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious InjuryInsurance LawCervical Spine InjuryRange of MotionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2003

Tempio v. City of Buffalo

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the City of Buffalo Fire Department, initiated a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a and respondeat superior. The plaintiff claimed injuries due to a fellow employee's negligence in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that the plaintiff falls within the class of persons covered by section 205-a, as it applies to 'any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured... while in the discharge or performance... of any duty.' Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude this action, citing that section 205-a grants recovery rights 'in addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law.'

Personal InjuryMunicipal LawRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationVehicle and Traffic LawEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFire Department
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2002

Cosby v. R.G. Delivery Service, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff's appeal regarding the denial of their motion to vacate a dismissal order. The original action for personal injuries, sustained in the course of employment when boxes allegedly delivered by the defendant toppled, was dismissed due to the plaintiff's attorney's failure to attend a post-note-of-issue conference. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, citing the plaintiff's unexplained four-year delay in seeking to vacate the dismissal and the apparent lack of merit of the underlying action due to Workers' Compensation Law implications. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the stacking of boxes to lack sufficient probative value.

Personal InjuryDismissalVacate OrderLaw Office FailurePost-Note-of-Issue ConferenceWorkers' Compensation LawProbative ValueMedical ReportsDelay in MotionAppellate Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 15,852 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