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

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

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
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
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
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

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

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
Mar 31, 2008

Ostuni v. Town of Inlet

An employee of Smith Construction, LLC (plaintiff) sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during construction and initiated a lawsuit against the unnamed defendant, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The defendant subsequently impleaded Smith Construction, LLC as a third-party defendant, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim, concluding that the indemnification clause might violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) if the defendant was found actively negligent. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding indemnification, holding that the clause was valid under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) as it only required indemnification to the extent of Smith's negligence and included limiting language "To the fullest extent permitted by law." The case was remitted for an apportionment hearing to determine the extent of indemnification owed to the defendant.

Contractual IndemnificationLabor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentGeneral Obligations LawActive NegligenceThird-Party ClaimApportionment HearingConstruction ContractIndemnification Clause
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Podhaskie v. Seventh Chelsea Associates

A judgment entered February 14, 2003, which granted summary judgment to third-party defendant Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Company, Inc. (Regional) dismissing a third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnity, was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the third-party complaint and all cross claims. The case involves an injured carpenter, employed by Regional, who sued the owner (Seventh Chelsea Associates) and construction manager (HRH Construction Corporation) for personal injuries under the Labor Law. These appellants then brought a third-party action against Regional for contractual indemnification. The lower court dismissed this claim, finding no existing contract for indemnity at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court found an issue of fact regarding whether various documents, including a bid proposal, certificate of insurance, and a later formal contract, demonstrated Regional's intent for the indemnification to apply retroactively, thus precluding summary dismissal.

Contractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Project
References
6
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 1,694 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