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 05, 2001

Palacio v. Textron, Inc.

The Appellate Division affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The initial action involved a plaintiff who sustained a hand injury while working for Piándome Country Club, Inc., and subsequently sued Textron, Inc., the lawnmower manufacturer and seller. Textron then brought a third-party action against Piándome seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. Piándome successfully argued for dismissal, asserting that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Appellate Division concluded that Textron failed to present sufficient evidence to create a factual issue regarding the severity of the plaintiff's injuries, thus affirming the dismissal.

Personal InjuryThird-Party LitigationContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave Injury DoctrineMotion PracticeAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.)

This case concerns Arthur Andersen LLP's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against it by Barclays PLC and its affiliated entities. Andersen argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. The original adversary proceeding was initiated by Enron Corp. against Barclays and other banks, alleging various common law claims. Barclays, in turn, sought contribution from Andersen, claiming Andersen knowingly played a role in misrepresentations in Enron's financial statements. The court ultimately concluded that bankruptcy courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Barclays' third-party complaint, leading to its dismissal.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy CourtThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsRelated to JurisdictionArticle III PowersBankruptcy Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1995

Maksymowicz v. New York City Board of Education

This case involves a judgment affirming the dismissal of a third-party complaint. The original action was brought by a plaintiff employee against defendant owners of premises, who then initiated a third-party action against a third-party defendant employer. The employer's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the third-party complaint, was granted by the Supreme Court, New York County. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs. The dismissal was predicated on the antisubrogation rule, as the owners were identified as additional insureds under the general liability insurance policy purchased by the employer. The court rejected the argument that an exclusion for work-related employee claims rendered the antisubrogation rule inapplicable, emphasizing the 'insured contract' clause within the policy which covered the employer's obligation to indemnify the owners under an asbestos removal contract.

antisubrogation rulegeneral liability insuranceworkers' compensation policyinsured contract clauseemployer indemnityasbestos removal contractsummary judgmentthird-party actionadditional insuredsemployee claims
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guijarro v. V.R.H. Construction Corp.

Ernesto Guijarro, an employee of Guaranteed Clean Air, Inc., sustained injuries from a 13-foot fall from a scaffold during a renovation project at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He and his wife subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against V.R.H. Construction Corp., Delta Airlines, Inc., and Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. In turn, these entities, collectively referred to as the respondents, initiated a third-party action against Guaranteed Clean Air, Inc. for contractual indemnification. Guaranteed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which bars such actions unless there is a 'grave injury' or a written indemnification contract executed prior to the accident. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court ruled that because the indemnification contract was not entered into before the accident, as explicitly required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, Guaranteed's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and the third-party complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentIndemnification ContractWorkers' Compensation LawAsbestos AbatementConstruction AccidentScaffold FallGrave InjuryContractual Indemnity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an original action where NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust sued People Care Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to workers' compensation contributions. People Care Inc. then initiated a third-party action against its administrators, Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., Cool Risk Management, Inc., LeadingAge New York Services, Inc., and LeadingAge New York, Inc., alleging various causes of action including breach of contract, fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, and alter ego liability. The Supreme Court partially granted motions to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, on review, affirmed the dismissal of some claims (e.g., breach of good faith, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence) due to duplication with contract claims or being time-barred. However, it reversed the dismissal of the second (breach of contract), ninth (negligent misrepresentation), and twelfth (alter ego liability) causes of action, and adjusted the temporal scope for fraud claims, allowing these specific claims to proceed against the third-party defendants.

Third-party actionMotion to dismissBreach of contractBreach of fiduciary dutyFraud claimsNegligence claimsUnjust enrichmentNegligent misrepresentationAlter ego liabilityStatute of limitations
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2002

Barreiros v. JJR Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by a third-party defendant following the denial of its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries, though serious, did not constitute 'grave' injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, it was established that the third-party defendant had fulfilled the insurance requirements stipulated in the parties' agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court's initial denial of the summary judgment motion was deemed erroneous.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion GrantedOrder ReversedInsurance ComplianceSuffolk County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swogger v. Waterman Steamship Corp.

The case addresses motions to dismiss third-party complaints filed by Sea-Land Service, Inc. and Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. The underlying action concerned personal injuries and wrongful death of David D. Swogger due to asbestos exposure while working as a marine engineer. The third-party complaints sought indemnity and/or contribution from manufacturers of asbestos products, shipyards that installed them, and other shipowners, arguing their negligence created the unsafe conditions. The central legal question was whether federal admiralty law applied, which would allow these claims, or if New York's General Obligations Law § 15-108 barred them. The court determined that admiralty jurisdiction was established, satisfying both the 'locality' and 'maritime nexus' requirements by focusing on the injured party's maritime activities. Consequently, federal admiralty law governs, denying the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss.

Jones ActMaritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionAsbestos ExposurePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathMesotheliomaIndemnificationContributionThird-Party Action
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2015

Baer v. Law Offices of Moran & Gottlieb

Plaintiffs sued a law firm and an individual attorney (defendants) for legal malpractice, alleging their failure to assert derivative claims from their son's medical malpractice case before the statute of limitations expired. The defendants had referred plaintiffs to third-party defendant David J. Clegg, who filed the son's complaint but omitted the parents' derivative claims. In the subsequent legal malpractice action, the original defendants impleaded Clegg, seeking contribution or indemnification. Clegg successfully moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the derivative claims were already time-barred when he became involved in the case. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Clegg could not be held negligent for failing to plead an indisputably time-barred cause of action.

Legal malpracticeStatute of limitationsDerivative claimsInfancy tollContinuous treatment tollThird-party complaintContributionIndemnificationMedical malpracticeDismissal of action
References
19
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

Hernandez v. Opera Owners, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,362 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