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

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

The petitioner sought to renew and reconsider a prior motion to stay arbitration of a no-fault insurance claim. The court had previously determined that threshold issues concerning conditions precedent for no-fault recovery fall under arbitration, not judicial review, citing broad arbitration provisions in the Insurance Law. Petitioner contended non-compliance with notice requirements and an unconstitutional deprivation of contractual and property rights. The court upheld its original decision, finding the arbitration provisions reasonable and consistent with the no-fault law's goal of reducing court congestion, with due process rights protected by CPLR 7511. The motion to renew and reconsider was granted, but the denial of the motion to stay arbitration was adhered to.

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1985

National Union Fire Insurance v. Ideal Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning personal jurisdiction over Parthenon Insurance Company. The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to reargue and renew opposition to Parthenon's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew, and subsequently denying Parthenon's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The central legal question is whether Parthenon, a 'captive' insurer for Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and its subsidiaries, which conduct business in New York, is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York State. The court found that enough evidence was presented to warrant discovery to establish jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityParent CompanyInsurance CoverageMotion to DismissDiscoveryAppellate ReviewCPLRCaptive Insurer
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC

This case concerns motions for reargument and renewal following a workplace accident. Plaintiff Cesar DeGabriel was injured when an I beam fell on his leg at a construction site. Plaintiff sued defendants Rockledge Scaffold Corp., Strongrew Realty, LLC, and Strong Place Realty, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Defendant Rockledge moved to reargue the partial denial of its summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff cross-moved to reargue and renew the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and the court's finding regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2). The court denied Rockledge's motion, finding issues of fact regarding negligent stacking of I beams under Labor Law § 200. The court also denied plaintiff's motions, ruling that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the I beam was stationary, and Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) did not apply, suggesting § 23-2.1 was more relevant. Both the defendant's and plaintiff's motions were ultimately denied.

Workplace accidentLabor Law claimsSummary judgment motionReargumentRenewal motionFalling object injuryConstruction site safetyCommon-law negligenceIndustrial Code violationsPremises liability
References
11
Case No. CV 14-6347(JS)(GRB)
Regular Panel Decision

Gesualdi v. Reid

The plaintiffs, trustees and fiduciaries of several Local 282 Trust Funds, commenced an action against J.H. Reid, General Contractor, seeking to recover allegedly delinquent contributions under ERISA and LMRA. The defendant failed to answer the complaint, leading to a default. After an initial denial of a default judgment motion due to improper service, the plaintiffs renewed their motion. Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown issued a second Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the renewed default judgment motion, award damages totaling $1,030,265.28 for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and deny injunctive relief. Despite granted extensions, the defendant failed to file timely objections to the recommendation. District Judge Spatt reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in its entirety, granting the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and directing the entry of judgment in their favor, thereby closing the case.

Default JudgmentERISA ClaimsLMRA ClaimsDelinquent ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansTrust FundsAttorneys' FeesLiquidated DamagesAudit CostsInjunctive Relief Denied
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tessler v. Suskind

Plaintiff, a union, moved for leave to renew and reconsider a previously denied motion for summary judgment against a stockholder of a corporation for unpaid welfare, pension, and sick leave funds. The court addressed the applicability of Section 71 of the Stock Corporation Law and Section 630 of the Business Corporation Law, which sets the period for commencing such actions. It was determined that the action, commenced on November 11, 1963, was timely under the Business Corporation Law. The motion for renewal was granted, and the motion for summary judgment for $3,184.99 plus interest, costs, and disbursements was also granted.

Summary judgmentMotion for renewalStockholder liabilityUnion contractUnpaid judgmentStatute of limitationsStock Corporation LawBusiness Corporation LawCorporate lawLabor law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1982

Naples v. Daubert Chemical Co.

This case involves multiple motions for a change of venue. An order entered June 23, 1981, denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Richmond County, was affirmed. An appeal from an order entered April 28, 1982, which denied a motion to change venue to Orange County, was dismissed as superseded. Finally, an order entered November 12, 1982, denying defendant’s motion for renewal of the April 28, 1982 order, was reversed. Upon renewal, the motion to change venue to Orange County was granted, as there was no nexus between New York County and the cause of action, and the accident occurred in Orange County where the plaintiff resided.

Change of VenueDiscretionary RulingSitus of ActionPlaintiff's ResidenceAttorney ConvenienceAppellate ReviewMotion for RenewalSupreme CourtNew York CountyOrange County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockwood v. City of Yonkers

The petitioner, a firefighter named Garret Lockwood, was injured during a training exercise for the City of Yonkers Fire Department in 2014, falling from a second-story window after a harness failed. His initial motion to file a late notice of claim was denied in 2014, as the court ruled his General Municipal Law § 207-a disability benefits were his exclusive remedy. Lockwood moved to renew his motion based on a 2016 Court of Appeals decision, Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, which changed the law regarding exclusive remedies. The court granted the renewal, finding it timely and the change in law applicable to the petitioner's situation. Subsequently, the court also granted the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, citing the respondent's actual knowledge of the incident and lack of prejudice due to the delay, despite the petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse.

Personal InjuryFirefighter InjuryLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExclusive Remedy DoctrineMotion to RenewChange in LawDisability BenefitsNegligence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 9,932 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