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. 2024 NY Slip Op 24324 [86 Misc 3d 365]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2024

Matter of Kosmo Family Trust

This case concerns the Kosmo Family Trust, where petitioners, including decedent Janet D. Kosmo's children and grandchildren, challenged the validity of trust amendments on grounds of undue influence by respondent Donna Savino. The court found that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and respondent, characterized by the decedent's vulnerability and respondent's active involvement in the trust's modifications. The respondent, initially a healthcare worker for decedent's disabled daughter, became the primary beneficiary, receiving almost the entire estate. Ultimately, the Surrogate's Court, Albany County, voided the second and third amendments, reinstating the first amendment's beneficiaries.

Trust ValidityUndue InfluenceConfidential RelationshipEstate DisputeTestamentary CapacitySurrogate's CourtCalifornia Probate LawNew York Evidence LawDead Man's StatuteHearsay
References
82
Case No. 900983-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

Plaintiff Building Exterior Services Trust of New York (BEST), a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action against former members, including A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for unpaid monetary assessments levied in 2013 and 2014 to address a shortfall. Defendant A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint and a cross-claim, arguing that it ceased membership in 1994, was not bound by the 2000 Trust Documents, and that assessments could only be levied against current members, with any authority expiring in 2003. The Supreme Court, Albany County, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Trust Documents, specifically Section 4.8 of the Indemnity Agreement and Section 10.4 of the Declaration of Trust, could authorize assessments against former members for periods of participation. The court also rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that the breach-of-contract claim accrued when the defendant refused to pay the assessments.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insurance TrustUnpaid AssessmentsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeclaration of TrustIndemnity AgreementFormer MembersTrust Solvency
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06050 [209 AD3d 1233]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Contractors Compensation Trust v. $49.99 Sewer Man, Inc.

Contractors Compensation Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued member Thos. H. Gannon & Sons, Inc. for unpaid deficit assessments. The defendant sought summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by a six-year statute of limitations, arguing the claim accrued upon the approval of the deficit assessment. Supreme Court partially denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the cause of action accrued when the defendant failed to make payments according to the established payment plan on March 3, 2014, rather than the earlier assessment approval date. Consequently, the Appellate Division concluded that the action, initiated in December 2019, was timely.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insured TrustStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeficit AssessmentPro Rata PaymentAccrual DateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird Department
References
9
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Servs., Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County. Plaintiff NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued defendant Recco Home Care Services, Inc. for unpaid adjustments after the defendant terminated its membership. Following an amendment to the complaint adding individual trustees as plaintiffs, the defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against these trustees, which the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. The defendant also sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under General Business Law, which was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and in denying the cross-motion to amend for the General Business Law claim. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing parts of the dismissal and denial, and affirmed the order as modified.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insurance TrustFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyGeneral Business LawStatute of LimitationsAmended PleadingsCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07909 [155 AD3d 1208]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2017

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

Plaintiff, a self-insured trust, commenced a collection action against defendant, a former member, for unpaid assessments related to workers' compensation claims. Defendant counterclaimed and filed a third-party action against Cool Insuring Agency, the trust's administrators, alleging mismanagement. During discovery, a dispute arose over a report commissioned by defendant's counsel from a consultant, which Cool and plaintiff sought to compel. Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Supreme Court partially granted the motions to compel, a decision largely affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, with a modification regarding a specific email exchange found to be protected attorney work product.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work ProductMaterial Prepared for LitigationSelf-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentThird-Party ActionClaims Administration
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McIntosh v. Irving Trust Co.

The plaintiff, Douglas McIntosh, sued his former employer, Irving Trust Company, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the retaliation claim under the New York Human Rights Law, awarding significant back pay and compensatory damages for emotional distress. The defendant moved for a new trial, specifically challenging the compensatory damages award as excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence of emotional injury. The District Court, finding the jury's award disproportionate to the evidence presented and to awards in comparable cases, conditionally granted the motion for a new trial. The new trial will be averted if the plaintiff agrees to a remittitur, reducing the compensatory damages to $20,000.

RetaliationRace DiscriminationCompensatory DamagesRemittiturNew Trial MotionJury Verdict ReviewEmotional Distress ClaimsHuman Rights LawFederal ProcedureJudicial Discretion
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 671 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