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

Walker v. Columbia University

The plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on June 15, 1973, but failed to move for a class action determination within the required sixty days, missing the deadline by over four weeks. The court found that this delay hampered public business and that no valid excuse was offered for the untimeliness. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' attorneys' failure to adhere to clear rules indicates they would not adequately protect the class interests. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the action as a class action was granted, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a class action determination was denied.

Untimely MotionClass Action DismissalProcedural RulesRule 23(c)(1)Rule 23(a)(4)Attorney ConductJudicial DiscretionDelayFailure to ProsecuteRule 11A(c)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

AIU Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The case involves a dispute between two insurers regarding their respective coverage obligations for a mutual insured in an underlying action following a fatal construction site accident. Plaintiff, who insured both the site owner and the subcontractor, sought reimbursement from defendant, who also insured the employer under a workers’ compensation policy, for half of a settlement paid in the underlying action. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to plaintiff, obligating defendant to reimburse plaintiff. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, vacating the judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant. The appellate court ruled that the antisubrogation rule would have compelled the dismissal of any third-party action, thereby precluding plaintiff from obtaining reimbursement from a coinsurer.

Insurance CoverageSubrogationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFatal AccidentCoinsuranceAppellate ReversalUnderlying ActionThird-Party Action
References
1
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. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2005

Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 v. Schwartz

This case consolidates two appeals arising from a 1985 real estate exchange involving Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 AFL-CIO (TWU) and 80 W.E.T.H. Corp. (80 WETH). Action No. 1 targeted real estate agents Alan G. Schwartz, Glen Allen Associates, Ltd., and Glen Equities, Ltd. for breach of fiduciary duty, contract, and constructive fraud. Action No. 2 was against attorney Richard L. O’Hara for breach of fiduciary duty and actual fraud. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Schwartz defendants, ruling claims time-barred under the statute of limitations, rejecting continuous representation and equitable estoppel. In the O'Hara action, breach of fiduciary duty claims were also dismissed as time-barred, but the actual fraud claim, initially preserved, was modified on appeal to be dismissed for 80 WETH. The disputes centered on undisclosed fees and potential conflicts of interest during the 1985 transaction.

Real Estate LawStatute of LimitationsBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelContinuous Representation DoctrineBrokerage FeesAttorney MisconductActual FraudConstructive Fraud
References
10
Case No. 994 S.W.2d 643
Regular Panel Decision

Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the single action rule or statute of limitations bars a plaintiff, Henry Pustejovsky, from bringing a second suit for asbestos-related cancer (mesothelioma) against new defendants, twelve years after settling an asbestosis claim with a different defendant. Pustejovsky was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1982 and mesothelioma in 1994. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding the cancer claim was barred. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that neither the single action rule nor the statute of limitations bars a later claim for a distinct malignant asbestos-related condition when a prior non-malignant condition was settled, especially given the differing latency periods and the low probability of developing cancer from asbestosis. The Court emphasized that a new cause of action arises upon the diagnosis of a malignant asbestos-related condition.

AsbestosLatent DiseaseStatute of LimitationsSingle Action RuleMesotheliomaAsbestosisOccupational DiseaseDiscovery RuleRes JudicataClaim Splitting
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. Monaghan

City police officers sought a temporary injunction and declaratory judgment to invalidate a police commissioner's rule prohibiting police force members from joining labor unions. The court addressed whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm and the likelihood of their success on the merits. It found no irreparable harm, as officers could withdraw union applications or appeal disciplinary actions, leading to full restoration of rights if successful. Furthermore, the court noted that previous rulings in other states consistently upheld the commissioner's authority in such matters. The court also highlighted that the New York State Constitution's provision on employee organization was specifically amended to exclude public employees. Consequently, the motion for a temporary injunction was denied.

Police officersLabor unionsTemporary injunctionDeclaratory judgmentPolice commissionerDisciplinary actionIrreparable harmPublic employeesConstitutional lawFreedom of association
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2011

Gomez v. Brill Securities, Inc.

The dissent argues against allowing a class action for plaintiffs' claims of overtime wages and other compensation against a securities firm. It asserts that plaintiffs, registered with FINRA, are contractually bound by Form U-4 to arbitrate disputes, and their attempt to frame the claims as a class action is an improper circumvention of this agreement. The dissent points out that a federal court previously compelled arbitration for similar FLSA claims, finding the collective action was not a class action under FINRA rules. It emphasizes the strong public policy favoring arbitration and argues that the class action method is not superior to arbitration, especially given FINRA rules allow for multiple claimants in a single arbitration. Furthermore, the dissent contends that CPLR article 75 (substantive arbitration law) should prevail over CPLR article 9 (procedural class action law) and allowing this class action would undermine arbitration agreements in the securities industry.

arbitration agreementclass actionFINRA rulesForm U-4Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAovertime wageslabor disputesres judicataCPLR 901
References
12
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
Jul 25, 1994

Kawecki v. McAllister

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which, upon reargument, affirmed an earlier decision granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the personal injury action. The case involved plaintiff Joseph S. Kawecki, who was injured by a co-employee (the defendant) on their employer's premises. The defendant sought dismissal based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6], which bars co-employee actions. The plaintiffs argued the defendant acted outside the scope of employment by violating traffic safety rules. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling the action was indeed barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, citing previous case law.

Personal InjuryCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentTraffic SafetyMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewAffirmed OrderDutchess County CourtReargumentJudicial Precedent
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,777 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