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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03881
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC v. Con Serv Constr., Inc.

This case involves two related actions for property damage after a fire at a commercial building. Plaintiffs TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC, Excelsior Estate Homes, LLC, Timothy Gulla, and E. Daskal Corp. sued Con Serv Construction, Inc., alleging negligence in installing a waste oil heater and storing flammable materials. A jury trial found in favor of Con Serv, determining the fire did not originate in the heater. The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict on one negligence theory but denied another. The Appellate Division affirmed the clerk's judgment, concluding the jury's verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence and any error in the directed verdict was harmless due to the jury's finding on the fire's origin.

Property DamageFireNegligenceJury VerdictExpert TestimonyCausationWaste Oil HeaterFlammable MaterialsAppellate ReviewWeight of Evidence
References
10
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06768 [121 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Williams v. Air Serv Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs in a wage dispute against Air Serv Corporation. The plaintiffs, including Brenda Williams, alleged underpayment due to a policy originating from an Air Serv supervisor at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The court found that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902, demonstrating common issues of law and fact, typicality, and adequate representation. It also determined that a class action was superior to individual administrative proceedings due to litigation costs and modest individual damages, upholding the lower court's decision.

class action certificationwage disputeCPLR 901CPLR 902appellate reviewemployment lawclass representationcommonalitytypicalitysuperiority of class action
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01453
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Matter of County of Nassau v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., AFSCME, Local 1000, AFL-CIO

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the respondents' motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose when the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), on behalf of Joseph W. Grzymalski, a seasonal worker, filed a grievance claiming he was entitled to full-time benefits due to working 40 hours per week. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the reclassification of a civil service position, like Grzymalski's, can only be accomplished by the municipal civil service commission as per Civil Service Law § 22, thus rendering the grievance nonarbitrable. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the County of Nassau's petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the respondents' motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationPublic Sector EmploymentCivil Service LawGrievanceReclassificationSeasonal WorkerFull-Time BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antine v. City of New York

This case consolidates 13 separate 9/11-related applications seeking leave to serve late notices of claim against the City of New York. Petitioners allege exposure to toxic substances during rescue, recovery, construction, and demolition operations at Ground Zero. The court addresses significant questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations under the ATSSSA (Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001), and the commencement of proceedings by filing. Ultimately, the court grants the petitioners' applications, allowing them to serve late notices of claim, deeming them timely served nunc pro tunc, despite jurisdictional ambiguities which are reserved for the federal court.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimstatute of limitationssubject matter jurisdictionfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawCPLRspecial proceedingsWorld Trade Center
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Miller

District Judge Frankel's memorandum addresses the sentencing of four former postal employees for stealing mail, lamenting the lack of public awareness for such routine criminal cases. The judge aims to invite notice to mail embezzlement to foster general deterrence, particularly among other postal workers. Despite acknowledging the defendants' non-evil nature and meager incomes, the memorandum emphasizes that their deliberate and repetitive crimes resulted in job loss, public disgrace, and sentences of confinement and supervised probation. This stricter approach signals a departure from past leniency, intending to underscore the serious consequences of violating public trust and to serve as a strong warning against future mail theft.

Mail theftEmbezzlementSentencingGeneral deterrenceJudicial discretionPostal employeesCriminal lawFederal courtJudicial memorandumProbation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. New York City Housing Authority

The petitioner, a diabetic, sought leave to serve a late notice of claim after sustaining an injury from a metal wire allegedly left by the respondent's workers. The incident occurred in February 1990, following repairs in late 1989. The petitioner sought medical attention and was hospitalized. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application to serve a late notice of claim. The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing substantial prejudice to the respondent due to lack of timely knowledge regarding the alleged negligence and injury.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawPrejudiceTimely NoticeAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryMedical TreatmentDenied ApplicationKings CountySubstantial Prejudice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colarossi v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal, and the motion was subsequently denied. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's reliance on law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish that the City had actual notice of the essential facts within the mandated 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter, as a Workers’ Compensation Board C-3 form provided by the employer did not link the incident to any claim against the City. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the City remained unprejudiced by the significant delay, particularly given the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition.

Late Notice of ClaimLaw Office FailureActual NoticePrejudiceWorkers' Compensation Board FormC-3 FormMunicipal LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingReversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,620 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