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. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. 34145/20; Appeal No. 5727; Case No. 2025-02172
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2026

Coronel v. Marcal Contract Co., LLC

Plaintiff Nelson Guadalupe Coronel, a carpenter for Capital Concrete NY, Inc., moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) after being injured by a falling concrete form. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff's motion, denied Capital's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and denied defendants Marcal Contract Co., LLC and AW Pelham, LP's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Marcal and for contractual indemnification against Capital. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order. It affirmed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiff on Labor Law § 240(1) liability. However, it granted defendants' motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action against Marcal, finding Marcal lacked actual control over the work. Consequently, the Appellate Division also granted Marcal and AW Pelham's motion for contractual indemnification against Capital.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentConstruction accidentElevation-related hazardProximate causeGeneral contractor liabilityThird-party liabilityAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00936
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2025

Williams v. McAlpine Contr. Co.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Williams sustained injuries at a construction site, leading to claims against McAlpine Contracting Co. and Sandy 350 under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 liability. It further modified the lower court's order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to existing issues of fact concerning site conditions and comparative negligence. However, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, noting plaintiff's admission that he did not trip on the raised curbing. The Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of defendants' third-party claims against Bedrock Plumbing & Heating, Inc., for contractual indemnification and breach of contract.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractThird-Party ClaimsPremises Liability
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06537 [143 AD3d 448]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Peraica v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.

This case involves an appeal by Crane Co. against a judgment awarding plaintiffs $9.9 million for past pain and suffering due to the decedent's mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's findings on defendant's duty to warn of asbestos hazards and proximate causation. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding a new rule from the Dummitt case concerning "economic necessity" and upheld the jury instructions on recklessness and the heeding presumption. However, the court found the damages award for past pain and suffering to be excessive, modifying it to $4.25 million and conditionally ordering a new trial unless plaintiffs stipulate to this reduced amount.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaDuty to WarnProducts LiabilityDamages ReductionPain and SufferingAppellate ReviewJury VerdictProximate CauseEconomic Necessity
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 17,366 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