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

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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04214
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Lamela v. Verticon, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal by Lamela & Sons, Inc. (Lamela), a third-party defendant, from an order granting summary judgment to Verticon, Ltd. (Verticon), a general contractor, dismissing Lamela's cross claims for common-law indemnity and contribution. Plaintiffs James and Robert Lamela, employees of Lamela, were injured on a construction site, leading to findings of strict liability against Verticon and property owners Satin Realty Associates, LLC and Satin Fine Foods, Inc. under Labor Law § 240 (1). A settlement was reached where Lamela was contractually obligated to indemnify Satin. After satisfying its obligation to Satin, Lamela sought common-law indemnity from Verticon. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that common-law indemnity was not applicable because the indemnification obligation between Lamela and Verticon was one-way and contractually governed, and Lamela's payment to Satin was a voluntarily assumed contractual obligation, not one imposed by operation of law.

Common-law indemnityContractual indemnitySummary judgment dismissalLabor LawThird-party claimsConstruction accidentScissor lift accidentVicarious liabilityGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor obligations
References
20
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

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

Hawthorne v. South Bronx Community Corp.

The case involves an appeal concerning a dispute between two insurers, State Insurance Fund and Zurich-American Insurance Companies, both of whom insured a subcontractor, Bri-Den Construction Co., Inc. The subcontractor was held liable to indemnify an owner and a general contractor for injuries sustained by an employee. State Fund provided coverage for common-law indemnity, while Zurich-American covered contractual indemnity. The central issue was whether a contractual duty to indemnify supersedes a common-law duty, thereby relieving the common-law insurer of its policy obligations. The Appellate Division found that contractual and common-law indemnity liabilities can coexist, meaning an insured with obligations on both grounds is entitled to coverage from both insurers. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that the mere existence of an indemnity provision does not replace common-law liability and both insurers are equally responsible for the loss.

Insurer disputeContractual indemnityCommon-law indemnitySubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityWorkers' compensationEmployer's liabilityInsurance coverage interpretationCoexisting liabilities
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2002

Cavanaugh v. 4518 Associates

Plaintiff was injured in a scaffolding accident at a construction site, leading to a lawsuit against multiple parties, including general contractor Ambassador Construction Co., Inc. and subcontractor S&H Carpentry. A jury found Ambassador 70% at fault and S&H 30% at fault, awarding the plaintiff $500,000. The trial court subsequently granted Ambassador's motion for contractual indemnification against S&H for the full award. On appeal by S&H, the court reversed this decision, holding that General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 prohibits a negligent party, like Ambassador, from being indemnified for its own negligence, distinguishing such agreements from insurance procurement provisions.

contractual indemnificationnegligenceLabor LawGeneral Obligations Lawsubcontractor liabilitygeneral contractor liabilityconstruction accidentscaffoldingpublic policyinsurance procurement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 1996

Zeigler-Bonds v. Structure Tone, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order related to a personal injury claim on a construction site. The plaintiff, an employee of an electrical subcontractor, sustained injuries after slipping on a greasy substance and falling down stairs. The initial order denied the subcontractor's motion for summary judgment but granted the general contractor's cross-motion for contractual indemnification. The appellate court modified this decision, affirming the denial of the subcontractor's motion due to remaining factual issues regarding negligence under Labor Law, but denying the general contractor's cross-motion. The denial of the general contractor's motion was based on unresolved questions of its own negligence and the enforceability of the indemnity clause under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site InjurySlip and FallNegligenceLabor LawAppellate DivisionThird-Party ComplaintGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2002

Masciotta v. Morse Diesel International, Inc.

Plaintiff James Masciotta, a carpenter employed by W. Property Resources, Inc. (Property), was injured in a construction accident involving a ladder. Morse Diesel International, Inc. (Morse), the project manager, moved for partial summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from Property. The Supreme Court denied Morse's motion, but the Appellate Court unanimously reversed this decision. The court found that the indemnification provision in the subcontract between Morse and Property was enforceable, as Masciotta's injuries arose from Property's work and the use of the ladder, and there was no evidence of Morse's active negligence. General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 did not bar enforcement because Morse was held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) without its own negligence.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentLabor LawLadder FallSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorActive NegligenceStrict LiabilityGeneral Obligations Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abruscato v. Local 199, Industrial Workers of Allied Trades, National Federation of Independent Unions

In 1964, Local 199, a union, entered a collective bargaining agreement with the United Construction Contractors Association, requiring employer members to contribute to various funds. Plaintiffs alleged that employer members failed to make payments and mismanaged these funds, asserting the Association breached the agreement by not enforcing its terms. The defendant Association moved to dismiss, arguing it had no contractual obligation to supervise, administer, or act as a surety for the funds. The court found that plaintiffs failed to allege such contractual obligations and consequently dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Collective BargainingUnion FundsBreach of ContractMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Fund MismanagementEmployer ObligationsAssociation LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,570 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