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

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. 90 Civ. 7546 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1992

Loper v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Loper and William Kaye, on behalf of themselves and a class, moved for summary judgment against the New York City Police Department and its Commissioner. They sought a declaration that New York State Penal Law § 240.35(1), pertaining to loitering for begging, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs submitted arrest reports to demonstrate ongoing unconstitutional injuries. Defendants countered that the statute was frequently misapplied, with many arrests mistakenly categorized under the loitering statute but actually involving other offenses like prostitution or drug activity. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion, citing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendants' enforcement scheme, making summary judgment inappropriate. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the mere enactment of an unconstitutional statute warrants relief, emphasizing the necessity of a credible threat of enforcement.

Summary JudgmentFirst AmendmentLoitering StatuteBegging RightsConstitutional ChallengeNew York Penal LawPolice EnforcementClass ActionJudicial ReviewArrest Reports
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wildman

This case addresses the constitutionality of Administrative Code § 10-118 (b) of the City of New York, which prohibits transporting building materials without proof of ownership. Defendant challenged the statute, arguing the complaint was facially insufficient and that the statute violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption and being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Judge Michael Gerstein denied all of defendant's motions. The court found the complaint facially sufficient and determined that the statute does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and clear standards for enforcement, rationally deterring theft and vandalism.

ConstitutionalityDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineIrrebuttable PresumptionAdministrative CodeStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawFacial InsufficiencyProof of Ownership
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Salamon

Defendant Yehuda Salamon moved to dismiss charges and declare Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional, arguing its vagueness regarding prohibited conduct, mens rea, and standard of proof. The People opposed, contending 'lack of due care' functions as a culpable mental state and the statute sufficiently defines prohibited conduct. The court analyzed the constitutionality of the statute, specifically the 'due care' standard, in the context of criminal liability and the requirement for mens rea. The court found that the civil tort liability standard of negligence ('due care') is inconsistent with criminal conduct's awareness requirement and creates unconstitutional vagueness. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion, finding Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional on its face and dismissing the related charges, while other charges remained.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessCriminal NegligenceMens ReaStrict LiabilityAdministrative CodeVehicle and Traffic LawMotion to DismissPedestrian Safety
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1992

Loper v. New York City Police Department

Plaintiffs Jennifer Loper and William Kaye, representing a class, sought summary judgment against the New York City Police Department and Commissioner Lee Brown, aiming to declare New York State Penal Law § 240.35(1), which criminalizes loitering for begging, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued their provided arrest reports, detailing over 1,200 arrests under the statute, demonstrated ongoing constitutional violations. However, the defendants contended these reports were subject to multiple interpretations, with many charges being erroneously listed or pertaining to other offenses like prostitution or drug activity, thereby presenting a genuine issue of material fact regarding their enforcement scheme. The court further dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the mere enactment of an unconstitutional statute warrants relief without a proven, credible threat of enforcement. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied, with leave for the plaintiffs to renew it following additional discovery.

Constitutional LawSummary JudgmentLoitering StatutePenal LawFirst AmendmentBeggingClass ActionStatutory ChallengePolice EnforcementJudicial Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burdick v. Afrimet-Indussa Inc.

Plaintiff Donald Burdick, a former employee of Valeron Corporation, sued Afrimet-Indussa Inc. and Kennametal, Inc. for lung disease caused by cobalt exposure. Earlier similar actions were dismissed due to the Statute of Limitations. These current actions were brought under the 1986 toxic torts revival legislation. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata and that the revival statute was unconstitutional. The court denied the motions, determining that "tungsten-carbide" in the revival statute includes cobalt exposure in the hard metals manufacturing process, consistent with legislative intent to revive claims for Valeron employees. The court also held that the dismissal of the prior actions did not bar the current ones under res judicata and that the revival statute is constitutional.

toxic tortsstatute of limitationsrevival statutecobalt exposuretungsten-carbidehard metals diseasesummary judgment motionres judicatadue processlegislative intent
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alston v. Transport Workers Union

Plaintiff sued a labor union for breach of its duty of fair representation between August 1986 and February 1987, alleging failure to properly represent him in disciplinary proceedings leading to his dismissal. The action was commenced on February 9, 1993. The central issue on appeal is whether the action is governed by CPLR 217 (2) (a), effective July 11, 1990, which shortened the statute of limitations to four months, or the previous six-year period. The court ruled that applying the four-month statute retroactively to a cause of action that accrued no later than February 27, 1987, would be unconstitutional, as it would immediately bar the claim without allowing a reasonable time to sue. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations applies, and the plaintiff's action was timely commenced. The court declined to follow the reasoning in Kleinmann v Bach regarding the applicability of CPLR 217 (2) (a) based on prior PERB charges.

Statute of LimitationsFair RepresentationLabor UnionBreach of DutyRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawDue ProcessCPLRCivil Service LawJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. GOL 0099213
Regular
Oct 24, 2007

DEREK VELASQUEZ vs. JOSE VELASQUEZ, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought reconsideration of a decision barring his temporary disability claim under Labor Code Section 4656(c)(1). The applicant conceded the claim was barred but argued the statute was unconstitutional, violating equal protection. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report which stated the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of statutes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDerek VelasquezJose VelasquezState Compensation Insurance FundGOL 0099213ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeGreener v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Industrial InjuryCervical Spine
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,026 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