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
Jul 28, 2009

Tullino v. Pyramid Companies

The case involves an appeal by third-party defendant Terra Firma Construction Corp. from an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The underlying action concerns personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff due to exposure to fireproofing material at a construction site. Third-party plaintiffs, including premises owners and contractors, brought an indemnification claim against Terra Firma, the injured plaintiff's employer. Terra Firma argued there was no contractual indemnification agreement. The Supreme Court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether a purchase order and an unsigned "Appendix A" constituted a binding indemnification agreement between Terra Firma and third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a factual dispute existed regarding the parties' intent to be bound by Appendix A.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentExpress AgreementPurchase OrderSubcontract Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mantovani v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant ADCO Electrical Corp. appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. Concurrently, the defendant third-party plaintiff Herbert G. Martin, Inc., cross-appeals from the same order, which denied its cross-motion for summary judgment on that cause of action. The underlying personal injury action involved an unnamed plaintiff, an employee of ADCO, who was injured while working as a subcontractor for Martin. The Workers' Compensation Law generally precludes indemnification claims against employers, with an exception for express contractual agreements. The court found sufficient evidence of a written contract in the form of a certificate of liability insurance between ADCO and Martin to deny both motions for summary judgment, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the indemnification obligation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionAppealCross-AppealEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate Affirmation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Cluett, Peabody & Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Petitioner moves to stay arbitration, contending there is no contractual relationship requiring arbitration of disputes arising from Bud Berman's employment practices. The dispute centers on an agreement clause stating the employer shall not hire contractors to manufacture garments unless its own factories are supplied with work and the contractor is in a contractual relationship with the Union. It is asserted that the company's factories are working part-time while contracting operations are indirectly accomplished, allegedly violating the agreement. The court determined that whether the company purposefully diverted manufacturing and contract operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bud Berman, constitutes an arbitrable issue concerning contractual meanings and breach. Therefore, the motion to stay arbitration is denied.

ArbitrationEmployment PracticesContractual RelationshipSubsidiaryUnion AgreementWork DiversionMotion DeniedInterpretation of Contract
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01469
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Guthorn v. Village of Saranac Lake

In this appeal, Robert Guthorn, an injured project manager, and his wife sued the Village of Saranac Lake alleging Labor Law violations. The Village, acting as a third-party plaintiff, sought contractual indemnification from Kilby & Gannon Construction Services, LLC, Guthorn's employer and a subcontractor. The core legal dispute revolved around the retroactive enforceability of an indemnification clause within a subcontractor agreement (AIA agreement) that was executed by Kilby & Gannon after Guthorn's accident but was backdated to an earlier date. Supreme Court denied the Village's cross-motion for summary judgment, citing a question of fact regarding whether the parties intended the agreement to apply retroactively. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim.

Contractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsSubcontractor AgreementThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactIndemnification Clause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scotto v. Brink's Inc.

This case involves an ERISA claim brought by the Trustees of the Local 807 Labor Management Health Fund against Brink's, Inc., seeking to compel contributions for vacation and sick pay. Brink's had ceased contributions upon the expiration of their collective bargaining agreement on March 18, 1984, arguing a lack of contractual obligation. The Court affirmed its subject matter jurisdiction under ERISA, rejecting preemption arguments under the NLRA and LMRA. Interpreting the ambiguous 'hours paid' clause of the agreement, the Court ruled that Brink's was contractually obligated to contribute for benefits earned by employees during the agreement's term, regardless of when the actual payments were disbursed. Therefore, the Court found Brink's liable for $33,565.25 in unpaid contributions, along with mandatory double interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs under ERISA § 502(g)(2).

ERISA claimMulti-employer plan contributionsCollective bargaining agreement interpretationVacation paySick payContract expirationSubject matter jurisdictionNLRA preemptionLMRA § 301Delinquent contributions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,914 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