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
Nov 03, 2010

Correa v. Orient-Express Hotels, Inc.

This is a wrongful death action where the plaintiffs allege that a decedent slipped and fell at premises owned by 21 Club, Inc., a company indirectly wholly-owned by the defendant. The defendant appealed the denial of their pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting the defendant's arguments based on documentary evidence and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court clarified that the defendant's potential liability stems from ownership and/or control of the premises, not necessarily being an alter ego of 21 Club, Inc.

Wrongful DeathMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Corporate OwnershipAlter EgoPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate DivisionAffirmedProcedural Motion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 3, 2011, which declared the defendant's answer stricken due to non-compliance with a conditional preclusion order from October 31, 2006, and limited the trial to the issue of damages. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not complying with discovery requests and did not present a meritorious defense, which was necessary to vacate the preclusion order. The court also clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board panel decision dated August 28, 2009, regarding the plaintiff's accident-related disability, does not have preclusive effect. Additionally, a prior decision and order of this Court, entered on April 9, 2013, was recalled and vacated.

Discovery SanctionsStriking AnswerConditional Preclusion OrderSelf-Executing OrderMeritorious DefenseReasonable ExcuseWorkers' Compensation BoardPreclusive EffectAppellate ReviewRecall and Vacate Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyso v. City of New York

In a wrongful death action, plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which permitted the defendant to amend its answer. The amendment sought to add an affirmative defense asserting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The defendant’s motion to amend was granted approximately three years after the initial answer was served. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. It reasoned that the plaintiffs were aware of the decedent's employment status and thus could not claim surprise or prejudice. The court also clarified that the workers' compensation defense is only waived if not raised until final disposition, concluding that the defendant’s alleged delay did not preclude the amendment.

Wrongful Death ActionWorkers' Compensation DefenseAmendment of PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCPLR 3025CPLR 3205PrejudiceLachesWaiverAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2013

Conroy v. Incorporated Village

The plaintiffs, former lifeguards, initiated an action against their employer, the defendant municipality, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 203-c due to the surreptitious installation of a video recording device in their changing room. Additionally, they asserted common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The defendant subsequently sought to amend its answer to include affirmative defenses, specifically invoking the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law and noncompliance with notice of claim statutes (CPLR 9801 and General Municipal Law § 50-e). The court partially granted the defendant's motion, allowing the Workers’ Compensation Law defense to be asserted only against the intentional infliction of emotional harm claim. However, the court denied the application of this defense to the negligence claim, noting that Labor Law § 203-c provides cumulative remedies. Furthermore, the court denied the defendant's attempt to assert a defense based on defective notices of claim, deeming the plaintiffs' notices sufficient.

Labor LawVideo SurveillanceEmployer LiabilityEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendNotice of ClaimMunicipal LawCivil Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1993

Girardin v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 24, 1993. This order granted the defendants' motion to amend their answers to include the affirmative defense of res judicata and subsequently dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting leave to amend. The appellate court noted that the defense of res judicata was not available at the time of joinder of issue, as Workers’ Compensation determinations were still pending. The delay in filing the motion to amend after these determinations was not considered excessive. The plaintiffs' claim of prejudice due to the delay was rejected, as they had the opportunity to appeal the Workers’ Compensation determinations but chose not to.

Personal InjuriesRes JudicataCPLR 3025(b)Leave to AmendAffirmative DefenseDismissal of ComplaintAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionPrejudiceSupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlingford Australia General Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Carlingford Australia General Insurance Limited (plaintiff) and defendant reinsurers, including St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company, and CIGNA Corporation, along with broker Marsh & McLennan, Inc., concerning a worker's compensation reinsurance policy. The core issue revolves around whether the reinsurance was on an aggregate or per-occurrence basis. Defendants moved to amend their answers to introduce an affirmative defense and counterclaim for rescission, alleging the plaintiff concealed material facts about its premium arrangements with the insured (Courtaulds-Nilsen), which seemingly guaranteed the plaintiff a profit. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law such as Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Ocean Insurance Company and China Union Lines v. American Marine Underwriters, granted the reinsurers' motion to amend their answers, concluding that the arguments regarding the materiality of the non-disclosures address the merits and should be allowed to be tested.

Reinsurance DisputeWorker's Compensation InsuranceMotion to Amend PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCounterclaim for RescissionMaterial NondisclosureInsurance PremiumsUnderwriting PracticesBroker LiabilityContract Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Brennan

This case is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of filing a false instrument in the first degree, stemming from false answers given to the Broome County Office of Risk and Insurance regarding workers' compensation benefits for a back injury. The defendant appealed on several grounds including denial of speedy trial, insufficient evidence to establish intent to defraud, alleged irregularities in grand jury proceedings, an improper Sandoval ruling concerning prior convictions, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting all of the defendant's claims. It found the speedy trial argument unpersuasive, confirmed that a rational jury could conclude intent to defraud, stated grand jury challenges were foreclosed by conviction, and deemed the Sandoval ruling and counsel's assistance effective. Furthermore, arguments for dismissal in the interest of justice and juror discharge were not preserved for review.

False InstrumentSpeedy TrialWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIntent to DefraudGrand Jury ProceedingsSandoval RulingEffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewCredibilityCriminal Conviction
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 15,544 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