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
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. William J. Scully, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who allegedly sustained personal injury during construction work at 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, on May 26, 1983. The plaintiff initially sued William J. Scully, Inc., the construction manager, and Tishman Realty Construction, the drywall contractor, in April 1984. The current motion was filed by defendants 1155 Avamer Realty Corp. and 1155 Development Corp., allegedly the owners of the premises, seeking to dismiss the claims against them on Statute of Limitations grounds. The court examined whether service on Scully and Tishman tolled the Statute of Limitations for the moving defendants due to unity of interest, particularly under Labor Law § 240 and § 241, which impose nondelegable duties on owners. The court found that if unsafe conditions were created by Scully or Tishman, the owners would be vicariously liable, establishing a unity of interest. Therefore, timely service on Scully and Tishman also tolled the Statute of Limitations for the moving defendants, and the motion to dismiss was denied.

Statute of LimitationsVicarious LiabilityLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryUnity of InterestMotion to DismissOwners LiabilityScaffolding Safety
References
4
Case No. No. 07 Civ. 10470
Regular Panel Decision

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

This case is a consolidated multi-district litigation concerning actual or threatened groundwater contamination caused by defendants' use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and its breakdown product, tertiary butyl alcohol. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico alleges that the defendants, including Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited and Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, have contaminated or threatened to contaminate groundwater within its jurisdiction. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the Commonwealth's claims were time-barred. The court discusses the prospective application of Puerto Rico's statute of limitations tolling rules, specifically the Fraguada decision which overturned the Arroyo rule. The court ultimately denies the defendants' motion, concluding that the Commonwealth's claims are timely, as Fraguada ended the previous indefinite tolling period and restarted a one-year statute of limitations, within which the defendants were added.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionStatute of limitationsTolling rulesMulti-district litigationSummary judgmentPuerto Rico Civil CodeJoint and several liabilityProspective application of lawEnvironmental litigation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Dissolution of Therm, Inc.

Petitioners, two of the three daughters of the deceased Robert R. Sprole, initiated a proceeding against their brother, Robert Sprole II, and nephew, Robert Sprole III. The dispute centers on the distribution of Therm, Inc. stock from a trust established by the decedent, alleging that estate taxes were deliberately delayed to prevent stock distribution and accusing respondents of various manipulations and self-dealing that deprived petitioners of their rightful assets. Respondents moved to dismiss, which the Supreme Court partially granted, limiting the remaining causes of action (breach of fiduciary duty and common-law dissolution) to acts occurring within six years of the proceeding's commencement. Petitioners appealed this limitation, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the ongoing fiduciary relationship and lack of open repudiation. The Appellate Division found the lower court erred, holding that the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty is tolled until an open repudiation or termination of the fiduciary relationship, neither of which occurred here according to the allegations. Thus, petitioners were not barred from presenting proof of acts preceding the six-year period.

Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsTrust AdministrationEstate LitigationCorporate GovernanceBreach of Fiduciary DutySelf-Dealing AllegationsAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEquitable Tolling
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1988

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Warner

In this case, the plaintiff sought to recover premiums for workers' compensation insurance from defendant Jack Warner, associated with Whoopee National Company. Warner disputed his affiliation and moved for dismissal, citing the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213) for the action commenced in March 1988, covering the period 1980-1981. The plaintiff countered that 22 part payments made by Warner between 1983 and 1987 served to toll the statute. The IAS court denied Warner's motion for summary judgment, determining that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Warner's precise role with Whoopee and whether the part payments satisfied the legal criteria to toll the Statute of Limitations, as per precedent requiring an unqualified acknowledgment of debt.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation InsurancePremium RecoveryPart PaymentsTolling Statute of LimitationsTriable Issues of FactContract DisputeAffirmed DecisionCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. ADJ11170818
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

ALICE TORRES vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION/K-MART, CHUBB/ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendants' Petition for Removal and denied their Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that removal was inappropriate as the WCJ's decision on the statute of limitations addressed a threshold issue, making reconsideration the proper remedy. The defendants' arguments regarding the statute of limitations were rejected, as the employer voluntarily provided medical treatment, extending the limitations period. Furthermore, the court found the statute of limitations was tolled due to the defendant's failure to provide proper notice of the applicant's rights.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410Voluntary medical treatmentTollingNotice requirementsEquitable Estoppel
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,913 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