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

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

D'Elia v. City of New York

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hornacek v. Zurich Insurance

This case addresses a dispute over discovery in a personal injury action arising from a December 14, 1974, automobile accident. The plaintiff, suffering from complete amnesia due to a severe head injury, sought to recover basic economic loss from his automobile insurer. The defendant insurer denied coverage, citing an exclusion for intoxication as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff moved under CPLR 3041 to compel the defendant to provide a bill of particulars detailing witnesses and documentary evidence supporting the intoxication defense. Defendant cross-moved to vacate or modify this demand, arguing the information was evidentiary. The court, recognizing the plaintiff's amnesia as a 'special circumstance,' granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering the defendant to disclose the requested information to ensure fairness and prevent surprise at trial, while denying the defendant's motion to vacate.

Bill of ParticularsAffirmative DefenseAmnesiaIntoxication ExclusionInsurance CoverageSpecial CircumstancesEvidentiary DisclosureCPLR 3041CPLR 3123Automobile Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Bernauer

This case involves motions and a cross-motion related to discovery and a bill of particulars. Plaintiffs sought protective orders regarding collateral source information and several demands in the bill of particulars, which were mostly denied by the court, except for demands 7 and 11, which were granted. Plaintiffs' motion to preclude based on the defendant's bill of particulars response was also denied, with a directive for the defendant to respond after deposing the plaintiff. The defendant's cross-motion to compel the Workers' Compensation Board file number was granted.

DiscoveryBill of ParticularsCollateral SourceCPLRLabor LawWorkers' CompensationProtective OrderPreclusion MotionPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ7332232
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

Domingo Mogo vs. Cardenas Markets Inc.

This case involves a lien claimant, True Scan Legal Copy Service, seeking reconsideration of defense counsel's Bill of Particulars for defense costs. The lien claimant objected to the reasonableness of the billed expenses, arguing they included costs incurred prior to the lien trial date. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because a Bill of Particulars is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board noted that the lien claimant's petition should be treated as an objection to the trial judge's prior notice of intent to impose sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantBill of ParticularsDefense CostsWCJLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 California Code of Regulations 10561Final OrderSubstantive Rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ1030732 (OXN 0137440) ADJ503798 (OXN 0137441) ADJ3788329 (OXN 0137713)
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

TERESITA C. DOMINGO vs. HONEYWELL, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, FINLAY FINE JEWELRY CO., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves applicant's counsel, Olive Richards, seeking attorney fees. The WCJ initially denied her petition for fees due to a lack of specific legal actions and a Bill of Particulars. While counsel has now filed a Bill of Particulars, the Board dismissed her Petition for Reconsideration as it was not taken from a final order. The Petition for Removal was also denied, as counsel failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, allowing the matter to return to the trial level for a ruling on fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAttorney FeesBill of ParticularsFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightWCJ Report and RecommendationApplicant Counsel
References
10
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01315 [236 AD3d 465]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2025

Goldman v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Valerie Goldman was struck by a fence adjacent to a construction site. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion to amend the bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion to amend the bill of particulars to include violations of Industrial Code § 23-1.33 (a) (1)-(3) and (b) (1) (i), citing factual inconsistencies regarding the cause of the fence's movement. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.33 (d) (1), deeming it inapplicable.

Construction AccidentPedestrian InjurySummary Judgment MotionBill of Particulars AmendmentIndustrial Code ViolationsAppellate Division DecisionFactual DisputesNegligence ClaimWorksite SafetyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Arias

The third-party defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint. Their motion was based on the argument that the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing the plaintiff’s verified bill of particulars. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, stating a lack of competent medical evidence from the appellants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the third-party defendants had established a prima facie case for summary judgment using the plaintiff’s verified bill of particulars, and the respondents failed to present a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewMotion DismissalVerified Bill of ParticularsPrima Facie CaseBurden of Proof
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,302 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