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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00720 [202 AD3d 433]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Galeno v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Fidel Galeno was injured in December 2012 after falling through a sidewalk shed roof while performing façade repairs on a building. The building was owned by Elk 22 Realty LLC, net leased to 20 West, and managed by ABS Partners Real Estate, LLC (collectively, the owner defendants). Everest Scaffolding, Inc. constructed the sidewalk shed, and Schnelbacher-Sendon Group, LLC (SSG) was hired for façade repairs, subcontracting work to Ramon Construction Corporation (Ramon), plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied conditional summary judgment for the owner defendants on contractual indemnification against SSG and Ramon, and granted SSG's and Ramon's motions for summary judgment dismissing contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification/contribution claims. The Supreme Court also denied Everest's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, granted dismissal of contractual indemnification claims against Everest by 20 West and ABS, and denied the owner defendants' cross-motion for conditional summary judgment against Everest. The Appellate Division modified the orders, denying SSG's, Ramon's, and Everest's motions to the extent they sought dismissal of 20 West and ABS's contractual indemnification claims against them, and otherwise affirmed. Issues of fact concerning proximate cause by Everest or Ramon remain, precluding dismissal of negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Everest. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against SSG were properly dismissed due to lack of negligence or supervision by SSG, while similar claims against Ramon were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySidewalk Shed AccidentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CauseConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1997

Host Marriott Corp. v. North

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action for contractual indemnification and common-law contribution. The denial was based on a contract providing for mutual indemnification between the parties. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to inform the plaintiff of a potential Workers' Compensation defense in an underlying action. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a motion to amend the answer to assert this defense would have been untimely. It emphasized that both Federal and State practice require leave to amend pleadings to be freely given in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice.

indemnificationcontributionworkers' compensation lawfederal rules of civil procedurestate practiceleave to amendmotion to dismissunderlying actionmutual indemnificationuntimely defense
References
5
Case No. 156776/17, 595506/18, 2024-03107
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2026

5915 Larone Butler v. Marco Realty Assoc., L.P.

Plaintiff Larone Butler, a demolition laborer, sought summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) after being injured by a falling pipe. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted plaintiff's motion against the building defendants (Marco Realty Associates, L.P., Old Navy, LLC, The Gap, Inc., and James Hunt Construction Co., Inc.) and dismissed common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Always First, Inc. by the building defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Marco Realty, Old Navy, and The Gap, finding they lacked supervisory authority over the work. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the building defendants on their contractual indemnification claims, citing unresolved factual issues regarding James Hunt's negligence and QCC Maintenance, Inc.'s responsibility for the pipe. The court also affirmed the dismissal of common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Always First, as plaintiff's injuries were not 'grave' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Falling objectDemolition laborerPremises defectGeneral contractor liabilityContractual indemnificationCommon-law negligenceContributionGrave injury
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05974 [187 AD3d 1099]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2020

Zukowski v. Powell Cove Estates Home Owners Assn., Inc.

This personal injury action concerns Vincent Zukowski, who allegedly slipped and fell on ice at a construction site, claiming common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants, AVR-Powell C. Development Corp. and Powell Cove Associates, LLC, along with third-party defendant A-One Landscape Management, Inc., appealed the denial of their summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting A-One's motion regarding contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, and dismissing Jaman Development, LLC's cross-claim for contribution against A-One. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants, citing triable issues of fact regarding their negligence and notice of the dangerous condition under Labor Law § 200 and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Slipping HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ActionConstruction Site Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its complaint for contribution and indemnification against the defendant. The defendant had employed two undocumented aliens who were injured on the plaintiff's property and received workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should negate the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which typically bars third-party claims against employers unless specific exceptions apply. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the IRCA does not preempt Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and a violation of IRCA does not abrogate an employer's immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification.

ContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)CPLR 3211 (a) (7)PreemptionUndocumented AliensEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ClaimsStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 1997

Marte v. St. John's University

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 16,177 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