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

DBL Liquidating Trust v. Clarkson Construction Co. (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.)

DBL Liquidating Trust (Drexel) appealed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of summary judgment in a claim filed by Clarkson Construction Company (Clarkson). The core issue was whether Clarkson ratified approximately 3,000 unauthorized trading transactions by failing to object in writing, despite explicit contractual requirements. Clarkson argued that oral assurances from their broker, Thomas Carpenter, stating 'nothing much was going on,' constituted an oral modification or grounds for equitable estoppel. However, the court found no legal basis for these arguments, emphasizing that the Account Agreement mandated written modifications and timely written objections. The court also highlighted that Clarkson's comptroller, authorized to review account statements, never raised any objections to the trades. Consequently, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, ruling that Clarkson failed to present a triable issue of fact and dismissing Clarkson's claim.

Securities TradingBrokerage ContractSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelOral ModificationRatificationCommodity Customer Account AgreementUnauthorized TradingWritten ObjectionCustomer-Broker Relations
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cueto v. Hamilton Plaza Co.

Victor Cueto, a construction worker, was injured when a ceiling fell on him at a construction site. After settling his workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Arkay Contracting, Cueto filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendant, Reckson Construction and Development, LLC, initiated a third-party action against Arkay for common-law indemnification and contribution. Special Trades Contracting and Construction Trust, Arkay’s workers’ compensation administrator, moved to dismiss the third-party claim, asserting that Cueto had not suffered a “grave injury” as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would bar such claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the third-party complaint sufficiently alleged a “grave injury” when afforded a liberal construction.

grave injuryworkers compensation lawindemnificationcontributionpersonal injuryconstruction accidentCPLR 3211(a)(7)motion to dismissthird-party actionemployer liability
References
7
Case No. 900983-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

Plaintiff Building Exterior Services Trust of New York (BEST), a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action against former members, including A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for unpaid monetary assessments levied in 2013 and 2014 to address a shortfall. Defendant A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint and a cross-claim, arguing that it ceased membership in 1994, was not bound by the 2000 Trust Documents, and that assessments could only be levied against current members, with any authority expiring in 2003. The Supreme Court, Albany County, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Trust Documents, specifically Section 4.8 of the Indemnity Agreement and Section 10.4 of the Declaration of Trust, could authorize assessments against former members for periods of participation. The court also rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that the breach-of-contract claim accrued when the defendant refused to pay the assessments.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insurance TrustUnpaid AssessmentsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeclaration of TrustIndemnity AgreementFormer MembersTrust Solvency
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYU Hospitals Center v. HRH Construction LLC (In re HRH Construction LLC)

NYU Hospitals Center appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC and Curtis Partition Corporation concerning a construction contract dispute for a radiology center renovation. NYU alleged HRH breached the contract by failing to proceed with Phase 2, while HRH claimed NYU obstructed its performance by contacting a replacement contractor and failing to make timely payments. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings that NYU breached the contract and its awards for damages to HRH and Curtis. However, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's holding that NYU held monies due to Curtis in trust under New York Lien Law Article 3-A, concluding no trust funds were established. All other claims by NYU against Curtis, including willful exaggeration of lien and indemnification, were denied.

Construction DisputeBreach of ContractBankruptcy AppealContractual ObligationsTimely PaymentsSubcontractor DisputesMechanic's LienIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryFrustration of Performance
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sergeant v. Murphy Family Trust

The dissenting opinion concurs with the majority on all points except whether the third-party plaintiffs, Murphy Family Trust and Murphy and Nolan, Inc., presented sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion filed by D.R. Casey Construction Corp. The dissent agrees that D.R. Casey proved the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the dissenting judge argues that Murphy failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish an issue of fact. The dissent emphasizes that for a brain injury to constitute a 'grave injury' leading to total disability, the brain injury itself must cause the total disability, not a combination of injuries. Consequently, the dissenting judge would affirm the dismissal of the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary Judgment MotionThird-Party LiabilityBrain Injury DisabilityMedical Evidence SufficiencyPermanent Total DisabilityDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewIssue of Fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moak v. Raynor

This case involves cross-appeals from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County concerning a dispute between former romantic partners. The plaintiff sought to impose a constructive trust on the assets of a sawmill business operated by the defendant on her property, to which she contributed labor and property use. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for $28,000 in sanctions against the defendant for alleged disclosure violations. On appeal, the court reversed both parts of the order. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the elements of a constructive trust (confidential relationship, promise, transfer in reliance, and unjust enrichment), which should be decided by a jury. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate willful disclosure violations by the defendant, thus concluding that the sanctions were improperly imposed.

constructive trustsummary judgmentsanctionsdisclosure violationsequitable remedyconfidential relationshipimplied promiseunjust enrichmentbusiness assetsproperty dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1990

Public Administrator v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

The plaintiff's decedent, an employee of subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp., suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding during a renovation project. The court affirmed an order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff Public Administrator regarding the liability of general contractor Charles Construction Corp. under Labor Law § 240 (1). It also affirmed partial summary judgment for property owner Trump Village Construction Corp. and lessee Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. against Charles Construction Corp. for common-law indemnity, finding their liability vicarious. Charles Construction Corp.'s motion for summary judgment against subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp. was denied due to unresolved factual issues regarding comparative fault.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentWorker FallVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnityGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,456 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