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
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2011

Wahab v. Agris & Brenner, LLC

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries when a scaffold plank collapsed at a construction site owned by the defendants. The plaintiff sued the owners under Labor Law § 240 (1), and the owners filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Atlantic Contracting, LLC, for common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from both the plaintiff and the owners regarding the Labor Law claim, citing factual disputes over proximate cause, and also denied the owners' request for conditional summary judgment on indemnification. Upon reargument, the appellate court affirmed the denials related to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claims but modified the decision to grant the owners conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Atlantic.

Construction Site InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1) ViolationSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party ActionAppellate Division DecisionQueens CountyPersonal Injury Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 1999

Taylor v. V.A.W. of America, Inc.

Scott Taylor, an employee of Vanguard, Inc. and Vanguard Organization, Inc., suffered personal injuries when he fell through a roof owned by V.A.W. of America, Inc. while performing repairs, having been supplied no safety devices. Taylor initially moved for partial summary judgment against VAW under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, as was VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard. On appeal, the court reversed the prior order, granting Taylor's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard, concluding that VAW failed to provide required safety devices and was entitled to indemnification.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteScaffold LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Tapia v. 126 First Avenue, L. L. C.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied cross motions for summary judgment between defendant-appellant 126 First Avenue, L. L. C. (126) and defendant Kinta Corp. regarding common-law indemnification. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting 126's cross motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim. The court found that 126's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was purely vicarious as an owner without supervisory authority over the worksite where the plaintiff was injured. Therefore, 126 was entitled to full common-law indemnification from Kinta, the actively negligent contractor. Kinta's argument for protection under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 was rejected due to a lack of evidentiary proof that it was the plaintiff's employer, with documentary evidence showing the plaintiff was employed by a different entity.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimActive NegligenceOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityEmployer Status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by K.A.B. Realty, Inc. (KAB), the defendant and third-party plaintiff, from an order denying its motion for summary judgment on third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification, and for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff was injured while working on a construction project for KAB, who then initiated a third-party action against Marin Construction Corp. (Marin) for indemnification. The appellate court modified the lower court's order. It granted KAB summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim, finding KAB was not negligent. However, it also granted Marin summary judgment dismissing KAB's common-law indemnification claim because the plaintiff was deemed Marin's special employee, barring the claim under Workers' Compensation Law. The branch of the motion concerning damages for breach of contract was properly denied.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecial EmployeeVicarious LiabilityAppellate ProcedureConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2009

Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.

This case involves an appeal by Boca Electric Corp., a second third-party defendant, from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Boca, sustained personal injuries in an electrical explosion at a construction site. Boca argued that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against an employer. The appellate court found that Boca met its burden of proof, and the plaintiff and Windsor Place Corp., the premises owner, failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding a qualifying grave injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted Boca's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action for contribution and common-law indemnification against it.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContributionCommon-law IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityConstruction AccidentElectrical InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZOLFAGHARI, MOSTAFA v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after falling from a ladder while removing a satellite dish at a gas station. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) and granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing the main complaint. The court also granted Atlanta's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Exxon's third-party complaint for contractual indemnification, citing an express negation of third-party beneficiary intent. On appeal, the higher court rejected the plaintiff's arguments concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), determining the work did not constitute 'alteration' or 'demolition'. Furthermore, Exxon's appeal regarding its coverage under the indemnification agreement was also rejected.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentLadder FallSatellite Dish RemovalAlteration of BuildingDemolitionContractual IndemnificationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2004

Baun v. Project Orange Associates, L.P.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning injuries and wrongful death sustained by Clair W Baun (decedent) after falling from a ladder at a cogeneration plant. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied. Defendant General Electric International, Inc. (GEI) cross-moved for summary judgment on a 'recalcitrant worker' defense and indemnification. The court modified the order by granting GEI's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against International Chimney Corporation, Inc. (ICC), decedent's employer, affirming the order otherwise. The appellate court found issues of fact regarding the recalcitrant worker defense but agreed that GEI was entitled to common-law indemnification from ICC as ICC supervised the work.

Worker safetyLadder fallWrongful deathLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200IndemnificationCommon-law indemnificationRecalcitrant worker defenseSummary judgmentProximate cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Public Administrator of Kings County v. 8 B.W.

This case concerns an appeal by defendants third-party plaintiffs regarding an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to unresolved factual issues concerning the accident's cause and its relation to elevation risks. Concurrently, the court conditionally granted 8 B.W., LLC's cross-motion for common-law indemnification, as no evidence of its negligence was found. However, Freeport Construction Co.'s request for common-law indemnification was denied, as it failed to demonstrate a lack of active negligence in relation to a dangerous premises condition. Remaining issues concerning Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) were not addressed as they were still pending.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Common-Law IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskNegligenceWorksite SafetyVicarious Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2012

Grant v. City of New York

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while performing electrical work and asserted claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence against the City of New York. The City, in turn, filed a third-party action for contractual indemnification against the plaintiff's employer, A & S Electric, Inc. The appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granting the City's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the City on its contractual indemnification claim against A & S Electric, Inc.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentLadder SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionNegligence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 17,396 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