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

Ruffolo v. Garbarini

The case concerns a legal malpractice claim filed before the effective date of a CPLR 214 (6) amendment, which changed the statute of limitations for nonmedical malpractice claims to three years, irrespective of the underlying legal theory. Prior to this amendment, legal malpractice actions seeking damages recoverable under a contract claim were governed by a six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [2]). The plaintiff's action, filed in March 1996, fell within the six-year period but outside the three-year period from accrual (February 1991). The IAS Court dismissed the complaint, retroactively applying the three-year limitation. The appellate court reversed, asserting that the amendment cannot retroactively invalidate an action that was timely when commenced, as this would impair vested rights and violate due process. Thus, the plaintiff's complaint was reinstated.

Statute of LimitationsLegal MalpracticeContract LawRetroactive ApplicationDue ProcessVested RightsCPLR 214(6)Appellate ReviewBreach of ContractTort Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Cesarano, Haque & Khan, P. C.

Plaintiff sued an accounting firm for malpractice, alleging negligent advice regarding estate taxes which led her to pay $32,761. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214 [6]). The plaintiff's claim accrued on April 14, 1994, before the amendment to CPLR 214 (6) which shortened the limitation period from six to three years for such claims. While prior rulings allowed a six-year period if the suit was commenced before the amendment's effective date, the court found the plaintiff's filing on October 29, 1997, was untimely. The court determined that even with a reasonable grace period post-amendment, the plaintiff failed to file within the three-year limit or a reasonable six-month window after the amendment's effective date, thus granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Accountant MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimEstate Tax LiabilityMotion to DismissTimeliness of ActionRetroactive ApplicationDue Process Considerations
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1999

In re the Arbitration between State Insurance Fund & Country-Wide Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dated June 15, 1999. This order granted a workers' compensation insurer's application to vacate an arbitration award that had denied its claim against an automobile liability insurer as time-barred. The court also denied the automobile insurer's cross-motion to confirm the award. The case was remanded for a rehearing on the workers' compensation insurer's claim for payments made to an injured worker within the three-year Statute of Limitations, commencing from December 4, 1994, the date of the arbitration proceeding. The court found that the arbitrator's acceptance of the Statute of Limitations defense was arbitrary and capricious, as precedent establishes a three-year limitation period from the date of the first payment, not the date of injury, only precluding recovery of payments made more than three years prior to the commencement of suit.

Automobile LiabilityArbitration Award VacatedStatute of Limitations DefenseJudicial Review StandardArbitrary and Capricious RulingInter-insurer ClaimRemand for RehearingAppellate AffirmationLegal PrecedentClaim Timeliness
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fellner v. Country Wide Insurance

This case addresses whether the State Insurance Fund, as a workers' compensation carrier, can offset a claimant's third-party tort recovery against future compensation benefits for earnings lost more than three years after the accident. The court examined Workers' Compensation Law § 29, specifically its interaction with no-fault insurance provisions (Insurance Law, Article 18). While WCL § 29(1-a) limits the carrier's lien and offset rights for benefits paid in lieu of 'first party benefits' (basic economic loss), the court clarified that 'basic economic loss' excludes earnings lost beyond three years post-accident. Therefore, the limitation in WCL § 29(1-a) does not apply to compensation benefits representing earnings lost beyond this three-year period. The court reversed the board's decision, which incorrectly held that no credit could be taken until $50,000 in benefits were paid, and remitted the matter for proceedings consistent with its finding that the State Insurance Fund is entitled to offset against compensation benefits for earnings lost more than three years after the accident.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Insurance Law § 671No-Fault BenefitsThird-Party RecoveryCompensation LienOffset of BenefitsBasic Economic LossLost EarningsStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
4
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 09339 [178 AD3d 1320]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2019

WSA Group, PE-PC v. DKI Eng'g & Consulting USA PC

WSA Group, PE-PC, an appellant-respondent, sued DKI Engineering & Consulting USA PC, a respondent-appellant, for negligent supervision and breach of contract arising from a subcontract to inspect state bridges. The dispute stemmed from a defendant's employee falsifying an inspection report, leading to costs for the plaintiff that the defendant refused to indemnify. The Supreme Court partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the negligent supervision and part of the breach of contract claims time-barred under a three-year professional malpractice statute of limitations. However, it allowed the contractual indemnification claim related to reimbursement to DOT under a six-year breach of contract limitation. The Appellate Division affirmed that the malpractice-related claims were time-barred, accruing upon the completion of the contract in May 2014. Crucially, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for counsel fees and investigation costs, finding that this aspect of the indemnification claim was not subject to the three-year malpractice limitation and fell within the broad scope of the contractual indemnification agreement.

Professional MalpracticeBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsIndemnification ClauseNegligent SupervisionSubcontract AgreementEngineering ServicesAccrual of ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1985

Testa v. Gallagher

Plaintiffs, members of Local 1 of the Utility Workers’ Union of America, sued the union and its agents alleging violations of the LMRA and LMRDA by failing to conduct shop steward elections. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a six-month statute of limitations under the NLRA, citing DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters. Plaintiffs contended that a three-year New York statute of limitations for federal civil rights actions should apply. The court, emphasizing a narrow construction of DelCostello by the Second Circuit, found that this intra-union dispute did not involve the labor-management relations concerns that warranted the shorter federal limitations period. Concluding that the three-year New York statute of limitations for personal injury actions was the appropriate analogue, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsStatute of LimitationsLMRDA Title ILMRA Section 301Federal Civil RightsSummary JudgmentIntra-union DisputeLabor DisputesNLRA Section 10(b)
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1981

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Jamaica Water Supply Co.

An unnamed insurance carrier, as plaintiff, sued an unnamed defendant to recover first-party benefits paid to its insured, Leon Morris, following a 1977 accident. The defendant sought to dismiss the complaint, citing the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214) from the accident date. Special Term denied this motion, arguing a two-year toll under Insurance Law § 673 (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial but on different grounds. The court ruled that Insurance Law § 673 (2) creates an independent cause of action for the insurer, distinct from subrogation. Consequently, the three-year limitation period accrues not from the accident itself, but from the point the insurer became entitled to sue, specifically, two years after the insured failed to sue for first-party benefits. Thus, the insurer's action was deemed timely.

Statute of LimitationsInsurance Law § 673 (2)CPLR 214No-Fault BenefitsCause of Action AccrualStatutory LiabilityInsurance Carrier ActionAppellate ReviewArbitration DecisionPersonal Injury Litigation
References
15
Case No. ADJ8904484
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

MIGUEL CERDA vs. LIVING OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding that their lien was barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board determined that the 18-month filing deadline applied because the claimant's last date of service was after July 1, 2013, and the lien was filed approximately twenty months after that date. The Board rejected the claimant's argument that a three-year limit should apply due to continuous service before and after July 1, 2013, citing precedent establishing the last date of service as the relevant date for the statute of limitations. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the three-year period should apply to continuous service before and after the July 1, 2013 date to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgetimely filingcontinuous serviceslast date of service
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Nelson

Plaintiff sued defendants, their insureds, to recoup first-party no-fault benefits. Both parties agreed there were no triable issues of fact, disputing only the timeliness of the action commenced on November 7, 1983. Plaintiff argued accrual on April 28, 1981, upon settlement of a Court of Claims action, while defendants claimed accrual on September 23, 1980, when the Court of Claims judgment was entered. Special Term initially applied a six-year limitation period (CPLR 213 [1]) but alternatively found the action timely under a three-year period (CPLR 214 [2]). The appellate court held the appropriate period of limitation is three years (CPLR 214 [2]) for actions upon a liability imposed by statute, such as enforcing a lien under Insurance Law § 5104 [b]. The court affirmed Special Term's alternative finding that the cause of action did not accrue until the underlying Court of Claims action was finally settled, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment.

No-fault insuranceStatute of limitationsLien enforcementCause of action accrualSummary judgmentAppellate procedureInsurance LawCPLRCourt of ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,912 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