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

McKnight v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff, previously injured in a work-related accident, sustained further personal injuries in a bus accident in 2010 and subsequently sued. A jury awarded her damages, including for past medical expenses, and past and future lost earnings. The defendants sought a collateral source setoff, arguing that the plaintiff's Workers' Compensation and Social Security disability benefits from her prior injury should reduce the award. While the Supreme Court initially denied this motion, the appellate court modified the judgment. The court reduced the awards for past and future lost earnings based on established Workers' Compensation benefits but denied a setoff for Social Security benefits and medical bills due to the defendants' failure to provide sufficient proof. As a result, the judgment was modified to reflect adjusted damages for lost earnings.

Personal InjuryDamagesLost EarningsMedical ExpensesCollateral Source RuleWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationEvidence Standards
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anastasia v. Barnes

This case involves a wrongful death action where the defendant, New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA), and third-party defendant, Pinkerton’s New York Racing Security Service, Inc., moved to amend their answers. They sought to assert a setoff for pension and insurance benefits received by the plaintiff due to the decedent's death, invoking the "collateral source rule." The court, presided over by Justice Kenneth H. Lange, denied both motions. The decision delves into the nuances of the collateral source rule, distinguishing between gratuitous benefits and those part of employment compensation. It concludes that NYRA, not having contributed to the benefits, cannot assert them as a setoff, and Pinkerton’s, despite funding some benefits, cannot use them against an indemnification claim, prioritizing the tort-feasor's responsibility for compensation.

Wrongful DeathCollateral Source RuleSetoff DefenseLeave to Amend AnswerThird-Party LitigationIndemnification ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPension BenefitsInsurance BenefitsTort Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nasca v. Royal Globe Insurance

Claimant Nasca, injured in an automobile accident with a noncovered person, received workers' compensation benefits from February to December 1980. He then sought recovery under the uninsured motorists provision of his insurance contract with Royal Globe, which rejected his claim. Royal Globe attempted to stay arbitration, arguing Nasca had not sustained a "serious injury" and that the company was entitled to a setoff for workers' compensation benefits. Special Term rejected this application. The court affirmed, holding that a "serious injury" need not be shown for recovery under an uninsured motorists provision, citing Matter of Dean v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. The court also found no statutory basis for reducing the recovery by workers' compensation payments, stating that any contractual right to a setoff is an issue for the arbitrator, not a ground to deny arbitration.

Uninsured MotoristWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance LawArbitration DisputeSerious Injury ThresholdSetoff ClaimCommon Law Right to SueFirst-Party BenefitsAppellate ReviewInsurance Policy Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2005

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Millenium Management, Inc.

The corporate defendants appealed an order denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award, which was entered by the Supreme Court, New York County, on July 29, 2005. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed this decision, finding that the arbitration panel's interpretation of a setoff-barring provision was neither in 'manifest disregard of the law' nor 'totally irrational.' Furthermore, the court concluded that the arbitrators did not exceed their statutory powers as per CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]. All remaining arguments by the corporate defendants were found unavailing.

ArbitrationVacate awardAppellate reviewCourt orderStatutory interpretationJudicial powerPanel decisionNew York lawCPLRAffirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the arbitration between Local 501, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union & Barmon Bros.

The Petitioner, Local 501, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, sought to confirm an arbitration award of $18,431.46 against an unnamed respondent. The respondent opposed the petition, challenging federal jurisdiction due to prior state court involvement and arguing that a portion of the award was invalid because the collective bargaining agreement had expired. The court, presided over by District Judge WERKER, ruled that it had jurisdiction, distinguishing the case from precedents where state courts maintained active supervision. Furthermore, the court declined to review the merits of the arbitration award for errors of law or fact, upholding the general principle that such awards are not subject to judicial re-evaluation. Consequently, the arbitration award was confirmed without any setoff.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal JurisdictionArbitration Award ConfirmationLabor Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActContract ExpirationJudicial Review of ArbitrationUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan v. Trico Products Corp.

A claimant who was totally incapacitated due to a work injury received regular wages for a holiday during their incapacitation period but no disability payment for that day. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award, refusing to credit the employer's holiday payment against the compensation award, asserting the payment was a private union-employer matter beyond its jurisdiction. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law section 25 (subd 4, par [a]), contending their oral request for setoff prior to the award satisfied the statutory filing requirements. While the court agreed the employer substantially complied with the filing requirements, it ultimately affirmed the denial of reimbursement. The court reasoned that there was no evidence the holiday payment was intended as a substitute for compensation payments, and claimants can receive both holiday pay and compensation benefits concurrently.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementHoliday PayOral ClaimEmployer LiabilitySetoffStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1980

In re the Rehabilitation of Empire Mutual Insurance

The claimant, Armando Barone, sustained injuries at Elan’s Service Station when struck by a vehicle. His claim for first-party no-fault benefits from Empire Mutual Insurance Co., the vehicle's insurer, was denied by a referee and affirmed by Special Term. This dissenting opinion argues for reversing Special Term's order, contending that the injuries arose from the "use or operation" of a motor vehicle under Insurance Law § 672 (subd 1, par [a]). The dissent asserts that the Superintendent of Insurance’s regulation, interpreted to exclude such claims, is an unauthorized and invalid departure from statutory intent. It also addresses the claimant's $150,000 settlement with Elan’s Service Station, finding it does not bar his no-fault claim due to court approval and the settlement exceeding $50,000, but mandates a hearing to determine any potential setoff for Empire.

No-fault benefitsAutomobile insuranceUse or operationService station injuryRegulatory interpretationInsurance LawVehicle and Traffic LawDissenting opinionSettlementLien rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karmilowicz v. Allstate Insurance

The petitioner was injured in a 1977 motor vehicle accident, leading to a no-fault insurance claim. Following an arbitration award, the petitioner moved to confirm and the respondent cross-moved to vacate, arguing the arbitrator erred by not allowing a Social Security benefits setoff for the petitioner's wife and child. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the court found the Supreme Court applied an incorrect standard of review for compulsory arbitration. The appellate court concluded that the arbitrator's failure to apply the mandated Social Security offset, as per Insurance Law § 671 and 11 NYCRR Part 65, lacked a rational basis and would create an unintended windfall for the petitioner. Consequently, the judgment was modified, denying the confirmation of the arbitration award, partially granting the cross-application to vacate, and remanding the case for recomputation of the award, while affirming the attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceArbitration Award ReviewCompulsory Arbitration StandardsSocial Security Benefits SetoffDependent BenefitsLost Earnings CalculationInsurance RegulationsCPLR Article 75Insurance LawAppellate Review Standard
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Hunt

Nassau Educators Federal Credit Union (NEFCU) moved for relief from the automatic stay to set off outstanding loan balances against deposits in the co-debtors' share accounts, citing New York State Debtor and Creditor Law § 151. The co-debtors, William E. Hunt and Ernelle Hunt, argued that these funds, derived from their pensions, were exempt under New York City Administrative Code §§ 13-312 and 13-375 and NYDCL § 282, and that NEFCU's administrative freeze violated the automatic stay. The court denied NEFCU's motion, ruling that New York's exemption statutes for pension funds should be broadly interpreted to protect the proceeds from 'any other process,' including setoff, to prevent the exemptions from becoming a nullity. Consequently, the court ordered NEFCU to remove the administrative freeze and permit the co-debtors to access their funds.

Automatic StaySetoff RightsPension ExemptionsBankruptcy Chapter 7Debtor ProtectionStatutory InterpretationCreditor's ClaimsNew York State LawAdministrative FreezeEquitable Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2001

Aussie Construction Corp. v. Empire Insurance

This case involves an appeal regarding a plaintiff's claim of overpayment for a general liability insurance policy provided by the defendant. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding $37,341, allowed amendment of the complaint, but also granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court unanimously modified the decision, increasing the plaintiff's award to $39,341 due to an acknowledged inadvertent error in the initial motion papers. The appellate court further denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, citing inconsistency with other rulings. The court also addressed the defendant's claim for a setoff concerning a separate workers' compensation policy, finding insufficient evidence to link the policy to the plaintiff due to distinct entities. The action's transfer to Civil Court for resolution of workers' compensation coverage issues was affirmed.

OverpaymentGeneral Liability InsuranceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicySetoffAppellate ReviewCivil Court TransferInadvertent ErrorEntity IdentificationInsurance Dispute
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11 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