Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 05-17-00423-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review

References

Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County

References

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff was fired from Manhattan Woods Golf Club after taking a day off for his dying mother's emergency brain surgery. He sued for FMLA violation and breach of contract. A jury awarded him damages for both claims. Defendants subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that he qualified for FMLA leave. The court granted the defendants' motion regarding the FMLA claim (Count I), finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was 'needed to care for' his mother as per FMLA regulations, and dismissed the claim. The motion for reduction of FMLA damages became moot. However, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim (Count II), upholding the jury's finding that the employer lacked 'reasonable cause' to terminate the plaintiff's employment.

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Merton Co. v. PepsiCo Inc.

The Merton Company, Ltd. sued PepsiCo Inc. for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Merton alleged that PepsiCo's representatives, through vague statements, induced them to produce toy components for a 'Pepsi Gang' promotional project, for which Merton was never paid. The court, applying British contract law based on New York conflict of law principles, found no enforceable contract due to a lack of certainty and essential terms. Furthermore, it determined that no 'special relationship' existed between Merton and PepsiCo to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of PepsiCo.

Contract DisputeNegligent MisrepresentationInternational BusinessCorporate LiabilityConflict of LawsBritish LawHong Kong LawDue DiligenceAgencyPromotional Products

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

This case addresses whether an employer's protection from third-party claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 is lost when its injured employees are undocumented aliens. Plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center sued defendant Microtech Contracting for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification, following a judgment paid to Microtech's injured undocumented employees, Luis and Gerardo Lema. The hospital argued that Microtech's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in hiring the Lemas should preclude it from invoking Section 11's shield. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division dismissed the hospital's claims, affirming that employee immigration status does not negate an employer's statutory rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the illegality of the employment contract under IRCA does not override the employer's protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, particularly as the hospital did not pursue conflict preemption on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Undocumented AliensThird-Party ClaimsContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryPreemptionLabor LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights

References

Case No. NO. 01-17-00203-CV, NO. 01-17-00206-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 23, 2018

Terri Porter Garcia v. the Travis Law Firm, P.C.

This case involved combined appeals from Terri Porter-Garcia and Allison E. Martin against their former employer, The Travis Law Firm, P.C. The appellants sought to dismiss claims of breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Theft Liability Act under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing the claims stemmed from their wage disputes filed with the Texas Workforce Commission. The appellate court concluded the TCPA applied. It affirmed the trial courts' denial of dismissal for the breach of contract claims, finding the Law Firm established a prima facie case. However, the court reversed the denial of dismissal for the fraud and Theft Liability Act claims, as the Law Firm failed to provide clear and specific evidence for these allegations, and remanded those claims for dismissal.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPBreach of ContractFraudTheft Liability ActWage DisputesEmployment LawAppellate Court

References

Case No. 15918/93, 19316/93

Regular Panel Decision

Stein v. Yonkers Contracting, Inc.

This case involves two personal injury actions brought by Ronald Stein, an employee of Rice Mohawk, against Yonkers Contracting, Inc. and the New York City Department of Transportation. Yonkers Contracting, as a third-party plaintiff, appealed parts of two Supreme Court orders: one denying its motion for summary judgment on a third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution, and another precluding its counsel from trial. The appeals by the New York City Department of Transportation were dismissed. The Appellate Division modified the order regarding common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution, applying the antisubrogation rule to dismiss claims only to the extent of payments made by Admiral Insurance Co. It also reversed the order precluding Yonkers' counsel from participating in the trial, citing an error of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredCounsel PreclusionWorkers' Compensation Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kendle v. August Bohl Contracting Co.

Samuel Kendle, an employee of subcontractor Clifford Quay & Sons, Inc., was injured while operating a motorized wheelbarrow at a construction site in Saratoga County. He fell when plywood covering a trench, allegedly dug by defendant August Bohl Contracting Company, Inc. (Bohl), buckled. Kendle and his wife sued the property owners, construction manager, and Bohl, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims but denied Bohl's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence causes of action. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Bohl did not exercise supervisory control over Kendle's work, a necessary element for Labor Law § 200 liability. The court also dismissed the negligence claim, noting that the trench was readily observable to the experienced plaintiff.

Construction AccidentMotorized Wheelbarrow InjuryWorksite HazardSubcontractor NegligenceLabor Law LiabilityLack of Supervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalPlywood Failure

References

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02888 [149 AD3d 500]

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 13, 2017

O'Leary v. S&A Electrical Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff Patrick O'Leary sustained injuries from an electrical shock while overseeing renovation work. He sued S&A Electrical Contracting Corp. and 1435 Broadway, LLC (Owner) under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted O'Leary partial summary judgment on liability, denied Owner's motion to dismiss, and denied Nygard's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Owner summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Nygard International Partnership and dismissing all claims against Nygard NY Retail, LLC, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that O'Leary was engaged in construction work, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) occurred due to negligence, and New York law governed the third-party claims.

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence

References

Showing 1-10 of 19,411 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 05-17-00423-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

References

Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County

References

Case No. 34145/20; Appeal No. 5727; Case No. 2025-02172

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 03, 2026

Coronel v. Marcal Contract Co., LLC

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Merton Co. v. PepsiCo Inc.

Contract DisputeNegligent MisrepresentationInternational BusinessCorporate LiabilityConflict of LawsBritish LawHong Kong LawDue DiligenceAgencyPromotional Products

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

References

Case No. NO. 01-17-00203-CV, NO. 01-17-00206-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 23, 2018

Terri Porter Garcia v. the Travis Law Firm, P.C.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPBreach of ContractFraudTheft Liability ActWage DisputesEmployment LawAppellate Court

References

Case No. 15918/93, 19316/93

Regular Panel Decision

Stein v. Yonkers Contracting, Inc.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredCounsel PreclusionWorkers' Compensation Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kendle v. August Bohl Contracting Co.

References

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02888 [149 AD3d 500]

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 13, 2017

O'Leary v. S&A Electrical Contracting Corp.

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence

References

Showing 1-10 of 19,411 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.