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

Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven

The petitioner sought leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the application, and the petitioner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim and did not show that the respondents acquired timely knowledge of the accident. The court referenced previous cases reinforcing that believing Workers' Compensation was the sole remedy and ignorance of other recovery possibilities are insufficient grounds for a reasonable excuse.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawSuffolk CountyAppellate DecisionReasonable ExcuseActual KnowledgePrejudiceSupreme CourtJudicial ReviewProcedural Law
References
2
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

Anderson v. Town of Oyster Bay

The court considered several factors when determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, including the petitioner's reasonable excuse, the public corporation's actual knowledge of the claim's essential facts, and potential prejudice to the corporation. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse, offering only a conclusory statement about attorney error. Additionally, the petitioner could not establish that the Town of Oyster Bay had actual knowledge of the accident, as an oral report and a workers' compensation claim form were deemed insufficient. The petitioner also did not refute the Town's assertion of prejudice due to the over eight-month delay in filing, especially given subsequent alterations to the accident details. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal LawActual knowledgePrejudiceReasonable excuseWorkers' compensation claimSlip and fallNegligenceSupreme CourtTown of Oyster Bay
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2008

Quarto v. City of New York

The plaintiff, Debra Quarto, sought leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education for negligence after fracturing her right ankle in a trip and fall incident on November 13, 2006. She had filed workers' compensation reports but failed to file a timely notice of claim within 90 days, citing ignorance of the requirement and reliance on her employer's advice regarding workers' compensation. The court considered three factors for granting a late notice: reasonable excuse, actual knowledge by the municipality, and prejudice to the municipality. The court found no reasonable excuse for the delay but determined that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim through the workers' compensation reports. Furthermore, the court found no substantial prejudice to the City because the condition (a raised sidewalk) was not transient. Therefore, the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was granted.

Late Notice of ClaimTrip and FallSidewalk DefectGovernmental NegligenceGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimActual KnowledgePrejudiceReasonable ExcuseMunicipal Liability
References
28
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06778 [165 AD3d 856]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Rekhtman v. Clarendon Holding Co., Inc.

Naum Rekhtman, a bus driver, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Clarendon Holding Co., Inc., the property owner, after he slipped and fell on ice in a bus yard. The defendant initially defaulted by failing to appear or answer the complaint, leading to a default judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently moved to vacate the default, asserting a reasonable excuse due to an insurance company error (mistakenly sending the summons to the wrong insurer) and a potentially meritorious defense (no notice of icy conditions and lack of maintenance responsibility due to a lease). The Supreme Court (Kings County) granted the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding no improvident exercise of discretion, citing the lack of willfulness or prejudice to the plaintiff, the public policy favoring resolution on the merits, and the defendant's established reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentVacaturReasonable ExcuseMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewInsurance Company DelayPremises LiabilitySlip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06580 [233 AD3d 963]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2024

Gilhuys v. Trovato

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment in a personal injury action. The defendant, Angela Trovato, failed to appear or answer the complaint, resulting in a default judgment for the plaintiff, Michelle Gilhuys. Trovato sought to vacate the judgment citing lack of jurisdiction under CPLR 5015(a)(4), excusable default under CPLR 5015(a)(1), and lack of timely personal notice under CPLR 317. The court found that service was properly effected, the defendant's excuse of insurance carrier delay was not a reasonable excuse for default, and she had received actual notice of the summons and complaint.

default judgmentpersonal injuryservice of processCPLR 317CPLR 5015(a)(1)CPLR 5015(a)(4)reasonable excusemeritorious defensejurisdictionappellate review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seemann v. Sterling Insurance

Plaintiff Seemann, while at work in New Jersey, injured a co-worker with a paintball. Four months later, advised by the co-worker's attorney, Seemann notified Sterling Insurance, his homeowner's insurer in Schoharie County. Sterling Insurance disclaimed coverage due to delayed notice. The Supreme Court found Seemann's belief of no coverage justifiable and his delay reasonable, obligating Sterling Insurance to defend and pay. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Seemann's good-faith belief that his homeowner's policy did not cover an off-premises incident was reasonable, and he acted diligently upon receiving the attorney's letter, thereby providing a reasonable excuse for the delay in notice.

Homeowner's InsuranceCoverage DisputeNotice RequirementsGood-Faith BeliefOff-Premises InjuryDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewReasonableness of DelayInsurance Policy InterpretationPaintball Incident
References
3
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. ADJ10062283
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

MARIA CARVALHO vs. IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied York Risk Services Group's petition for reconsideration of a $\$ 200.00$ sanction. The sanction was imposed for York's failure to appear at a hearing for which it was properly served by mail. York failed to provide good cause for its non-appearance, and its assertion of resolving issues telephonically did not excuse the failure to appear. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the notice was properly served and no reasonable excuse was offered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsFailure to AppearGood CauseNotice of HearingService by MailElectronic Adjudication Management SystemPresumption of Receipt
References
0
Case No. ADJ8164012
Regular
Jul 01, 2013

HOSSEIN MOGHADAM vs. TESORO USA PETROLEUM, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE

This case concerns a $\$ 250$ sanction imposed on applicant's attorney for failing to appear at a hearing. The applicant's attorney sought reconsideration, arguing a misunderstanding of "special appearance." The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and clarifying that a "special appearance" does not excuse an attorney from a hearing, especially when made by opposing counsel. The Board emphasized that only a WCJ can excuse an appearance or grant a continuance, and cautioned the attorney against future rule violations.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsFailure to AppearSpecial AppearanceWCJApplicant's AttorneyFiduciary DutiesConflict of InterestContinuanceAppeals Board Rule 10843
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,604 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