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

Hoesl v. Kearns

Petitioner, a police officer and president of the Garden City Police Benevolent Association, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment to prevent the Chief of the Garden City Police Department from allowing "Special Police Officers" to drive departmental vehicles with police markings. Petitioner contended this practice violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 396(2), which restricts such operation to members or employees of a duly organized police department. The respondent cross-moved for dismissal, citing various procedural grounds including the Statute of Limitations. The court treated the proceeding as one in the nature of mandamus, denied the dismissal on procedural and Statute of Limitations grounds, and addressed the merits. The court found that "Special Police Officers," despite serving without remuneration, are considered "members" or "employees" under relevant statutes and departmental rules, and their use of marked departmental vehicles for official business is not prohibited by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 396(2). Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

CPLR Article 78MandamusProhibition WritPolice DepartmentSpecial Police OfficersVehicle OperationStatutory InterpretationVillage LawEmployment StatusGovernmental Discretion
References
7
Case No. ADJ5774907
Regular
Jan 15, 2014

ROBERT PORTER vs. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order that dismissed the case from the trial calendar. The defendant seeks to litigate the statute of limitations as a threshold issue, arguing it was improperly denied. The Board found that statute of limitations is a threshold issue that can be bifurcated and that the prior denial of a dismissal petition was procedural, not on the merits. The case is returned to the trial level for proceedings on the statute of limitations.

Petition for RemovalStatute of LimitationsJurisdictionRes JudicataThreshold IssueLabor Code Section 5405Affirmative DefenseBifurcationDeclaration of ReadinessOff Calendar
References
3
Case No. ADJ4612779 (RDG 0113043), ADJ1750033 (RDG 0129403), ADJ4527180 (RDG 0129951)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

JUAN VILLALOBOS vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves appeals regarding the statute of limitations for applicant Juan Villalobos's workers' compensation claims against Coca Cola Bottling Company. The Board affirmed the lower judge's decision that claims ADJ4527180 and ADJ1750033 were not barred by the statute of limitations. This was based on the employer's failure to provide proper notice of potential benefits, which tolled the statute, and the employer's inability to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his rights. The Board found the employer's amended petitions for reconsideration procedurally acceptable, but ultimately affirmed the original findings on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsCumulative InjuryPetition to StrikeVerified PetitionActual KnowledgeLabor Code Section 5401(a)Tolling
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03093
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2018

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case addresses the applicable statute of limitations for no-fault claims against a self-insured entity. The Court of Appeals determined that the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214 (2) governs such claims, as the obligation to provide no-fault benefits by a self-insurer is statutory rather than contractual. This decision reversed the Appellate Division, which had applied a six-year statute of limitations based on a contractual nature. The Court clarified that in the absence of a private insurance contract, the self-insurer's liability for first-party benefits is wholly statutory. The ruling impacts procedural aspects without altering the substantive no-fault obligations of self-insurers.

Statute of LimitationsNo-Fault InsuranceSelf-Insurer LiabilityCPLR 214 (2)CPLR 213 (2)Statutory ObligationContractual ObligationFirst-Party BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. United States

The plaintiff, Boyd Richard Brewer, Sr., a self-proclaimed tax protestor, initiated litigation against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to regain properties seized and sold due to his failure to file tax returns from 1980-1982 and 1984-1987. Rather than challenging his tax liability, Brewer focused on alleged procedural defects in the IRS's assessment and collection methods. The court denied Brewer's motion for a preliminary injunction, citing the Anti-Injunction Act and the availability of other legal remedies. Furthermore, the court largely granted the government's motions for summary judgment, dismissing most of Brewer's procedural challenges, including those related to notices, statute of limitations, and delegation of authority. However, the court reserved its decision on specific claims regarding the IRS's compliance with assessment procedures and the precise dates of title transfer for certain properties, ordering the government to provide further documentation.

Tax Protestor LitigationIRS Collection ProceduresAnti-Injunction ActQuiet Title ActionNotice of DeficiencyTax Assessment ValiditySummary Judgment StandardProcedural IrregularitiesStatute of Limitations (Tax)Paperwork Reduction Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1977

MATTER OF QUEENSBOROUGH CMTY. COLL. OF THE CITY UNIV. OF NEW YORK v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd.

The court affirmed the order, determining that the one-year statute of limitations for filing a complaint about an unlawful discriminatory practice begins when notice of the alleged discriminatory practice, such as a decision not to reappoint, is given. It is not delayed until the completion of the employee's current term. The court drew an analogy to general civil practice statutes of limitation and noted that invoking a grievance procedure does not toll the limitation period, citing similar conclusions in Federal practice.

Statute of LimitationsDiscriminatory PracticeReappointmentGrievance ProcedureExecutive LawCPLRFederal PracticeCourt of AppealsEmployment Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ9866898
Regular
Sep 28, 2018

MARIA GARIBAY vs. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES RESTAURANTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in Maria Garibay's case. The denial was based on the finding that the parties failed to follow the mandatory procedure outlined in Labor Code section 4062.2 for obtaining a medical-legal evaluation. This statute dictates a specific process involving agreement or a QME panel selection, which was not demonstrated to have been followed in this case. Therefore, the petition was denied as the necessary procedural requirements were not met.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 4062.2Medical-legal evaluationQME panelAgreed medical evaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedDisputed issueRepresented employeeInjury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,207 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