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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03881
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC v. Con Serv Constr., Inc.

This case involves two related actions for property damage after a fire at a commercial building. Plaintiffs TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC, Excelsior Estate Homes, LLC, Timothy Gulla, and E. Daskal Corp. sued Con Serv Construction, Inc., alleging negligence in installing a waste oil heater and storing flammable materials. A jury trial found in favor of Con Serv, determining the fire did not originate in the heater. The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict on one negligence theory but denied another. The Appellate Division affirmed the clerk's judgment, concluding the jury's verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence and any error in the directed verdict was harmless due to the jury's finding on the fire's origin.

Property DamageFireNegligenceJury VerdictExpert TestimonyCausationWaste Oil HeaterFlammable MaterialsAppellate ReviewWeight of Evidence
References
10
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06768 [121 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Williams v. Air Serv Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs in a wage dispute against Air Serv Corporation. The plaintiffs, including Brenda Williams, alleged underpayment due to a policy originating from an Air Serv supervisor at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The court found that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902, demonstrating common issues of law and fact, typicality, and adequate representation. It also determined that a class action was superior to individual administrative proceedings due to litigation costs and modest individual damages, upholding the lower court's decision.

class action certificationwage disputeCPLR 901CPLR 902appellate reviewemployment lawclass representationcommonalitytypicalitysuperiority of class action
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01453
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Matter of County of Nassau v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., AFSCME, Local 1000, AFL-CIO

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the respondents' motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose when the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), on behalf of Joseph W. Grzymalski, a seasonal worker, filed a grievance claiming he was entitled to full-time benefits due to working 40 hours per week. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the reclassification of a civil service position, like Grzymalski's, can only be accomplished by the municipal civil service commission as per Civil Service Law § 22, thus rendering the grievance nonarbitrable. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the County of Nassau's petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the respondents' motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationPublic Sector EmploymentCivil Service LawGrievanceReclassificationSeasonal WorkerFull-Time BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antine v. City of New York

This case consolidates 13 separate 9/11-related applications seeking leave to serve late notices of claim against the City of New York. Petitioners allege exposure to toxic substances during rescue, recovery, construction, and demolition operations at Ground Zero. The court addresses significant questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations under the ATSSSA (Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001), and the commencement of proceedings by filing. Ultimately, the court grants the petitioners' applications, allowing them to serve late notices of claim, deeming them timely served nunc pro tunc, despite jurisdictional ambiguities which are reserved for the federal court.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimstatute of limitationssubject matter jurisdictionfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawCPLRspecial proceedingsWorld Trade Center
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. New York City Housing Authority

The petitioner, a diabetic, sought leave to serve a late notice of claim after sustaining an injury from a metal wire allegedly left by the respondent's workers. The incident occurred in February 1990, following repairs in late 1989. The petitioner sought medical attention and was hospitalized. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application to serve a late notice of claim. The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing substantial prejudice to the respondent due to lack of timely knowledge regarding the alleged negligence and injury.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawPrejudiceTimely NoticeAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryMedical TreatmentDenied ApplicationKings CountySubstantial Prejudice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colarossi v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal, and the motion was subsequently denied. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's reliance on law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish that the City had actual notice of the essential facts within the mandated 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter, as a Workers’ Compensation Board C-3 form provided by the employer did not link the incident to any claim against the City. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the City remained unprejudiced by the significant delay, particularly given the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition.

Late Notice of ClaimLaw Office FailureActual NoticePrejudiceWorkers' Compensation Board FormC-3 FormMunicipal LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1985

Albanese v. Village of Floral Park

The petitioners, Vito Albanese, Jr. (an infant claimant) and his father Vito Albanese, Sr., appealed from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning their application to serve a late notice of claim against the Village of Floral Park and its Fire and Police Department. The infant suffered severe brain damage after a suicide attempt, and petitioners alleged negligence in rescue efforts. The Supreme Court denied their initial application and a subsequent motion for renewal and reargument, citing the lack of excuse for the delay and prejudice to the respondents. The appellate court affirmed the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim, finding that while renewal and reargument should have been granted, the original determination to deny the application was correctly adhered to due to the unjustified delay and lack of a demonstrated nexus between the alleged negligence and the injury.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eInfancy DisabilityDiscretionary DenialGovernmental ImmunityNegligence AllegationsBrain DamageRescue EffortsPrejudice to DefendantTimeliness Requirement
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06139 [243 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Pacheco v. Catholic Guardian Servs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action alleging nonpayment of wages under Labor Law § 191. The plaintiff, Ingrid Pacheco, failed to state a valid claim under Labor Law § 191 as it pertains to frequency of pay, not unpaid wages, and she did not make any allegations regarding the frequency of pay. Furthermore, Pacheco did not sufficiently allege that she is a clerical worker entitled to § 191 protections, rather than a professional worker excluded from them. Consequently, her related claim under Labor Law § 198, which provides remedies for substantive violations of Labor Law article 6, was also dismissed.

Nonpayment of WagesLabor Law § 191 ClaimFrequency of PayClerical Worker StatusProfessional Worker ExemptionLabor Law § 198 RemediesAmended Complaint DismissalAppellate Division First DepartmentSufficiency of PleadingWage and Hour Disputes
References
7
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24159
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Ross v. Louise Wise Servs.

Plaintiffs Arthur and Dr. Barbara Ross sued Louise Wise Services, Inc., an adoption agency, alleging wrongful adoption and fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They claimed the agency concealed their adopted son's family history of paranoid schizophrenia. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment on the wrongful adoption and fraud claim, finding triable issues of fact regarding fraudulent concealment. However, the court dismissed the negligence and intentional tort claims as time-barred. The court also limited potential compensatory damages to extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses incurred until the son reached age 21, but allowed the claim for punitive damages to proceed.

Wrongful adoptionFraudulent concealmentParanoid schizophreniaAdoption agency liabilityStatute of limitations defenseEquitable estoppelCompensatory damages limitationPunitive damagesMental health disclosureBreach of fiduciary duty
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,173 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