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. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larrier v. Miller

This case involves an action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant union seeking damages for assault and battery. The union filed a motion to dismiss the first cause of action alleged in the amended complaint. The court affirmed the order denying the union's motion to dismiss, insofar as appealed from. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted leave to serve a second amended complaint concerning the second cause of action within ten days from the entry of the order.

Assault and BatteryMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintUnion LiabilityDamagesCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsPanel DecisionLeave to Amend
References
0
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. ADJ6830729
Regular
Apr 21, 2010

ALFONSO ESCOBAR vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order suspending action was not a final order. However, the Board treated the filing as a Petition for Removal, granted it, and rescinded the judge's order suspending action. This action allows the matter to return to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the defendant's Petition to Compel Deposition. The WCJ's observation that the deponent should not be deposed again was clarified as merely an observation, not a binding ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionPetition to Compel DepositionProof of ServiceProof of NoticeDue ProcessAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFinal Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ928027
Regular
Feb 03, 2016

DAVID TRINH vs. TZENG LONG USA, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves the suspension of Mike Traw's privilege to appear before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under Labor Code Section 4907. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to suspend due to non-payment of sanctions and failure to respond. While Professional Lien Services, Inc. (PLS) sought extensions, neither Traw nor PLS provided a substantive response. Consequently, Traw's appearance privilege is suspended for ninety days due to his failure to comply with the WCAB's orders. Further action against PLS may occur if ordered sanctions remain unpaid.

Labor Code Section 4907Decision After RemovalNotice of IntentionSuspension of PrivilegeProfessional Lien ServicesMike TrawAppeals Board En BancSanction OrderInterference with Judicial ProcessWCAB
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02063
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Hasenzahl v. 44th St. Dev. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, considered an appeal concerning a Supreme Court order that granted a motion to sever and stay a second third-party action, and denied a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in severing and staying the second third-party action, citing that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. It further noted that Gateway and Woodworks' subcontracts provided for joint and several liability, allowing for apportionment in a separate proceeding. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting Gateway's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against it. This dismissal was based on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff, Gateway's employer, did not sustain a grave injury.

Appellate PracticeThird-Party ActionsSeverance and StaySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryJoint and Several LiabilitySubcontractor Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richey v. Hamm

This case involves an appeal in a personal injury action. The plaintiff's initial complaint was dismissed for failure to serve the defendant, leading to a second action. The defendant moved to dismiss this second action as time-barred. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, but the appellate court reversed, finding that a hearing was necessary to resolve factual issues regarding equitable estoppel. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's insurance adjuster induced them to delay service, which could prevent the defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court also considered the applicability of CPLR 205 (a) to extend the time for the second action. The order of dismissal was reversed, the motion denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remitted for a hearing.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentStatute of Limitations DefenseEquitable Estoppel DoctrineDismissal of ComplaintService of Process RequirementsInsurance Adjuster MisrepresentationIssues of FactRemand for HearingAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 01-cv-7920 (AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2006

Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees

This Second Supplementary Decision and Order for Judgment addresses three key issues: the effective date of Equitable's cash balance plan, the applicable statute of limitations, and the implementation of prior rulings. The court established January 18, 1993, as the effective date for the cash balance plan. Crucially, it ruled that the named plaintiffs' class action, filed on August 23, 2001, was time-barred under New York's six-year statute of limitations, as their cause of action accrued on January 18, 1993. However, the decision clarified that class members not directly party to this lawsuit are not bound by this limitation and retain their right to pursue claims. Finally, the plaintiffs' request for an ombudsman role in judgment implementation was denied.

ERISACash Balance PlanStatute of LimitationsClass ActionEmployee BenefitsPension PlanNotice RequirementsDe-grandfatheringFederal Discovery RuleRepudiation
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 27,627 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