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

Prestige Builder & Management LLC v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Prestige Builder & Management LLC, a New York subcontractor, initiated a diversity action against Triton Structural Concrete Incorporated, its surety Safeco Insurance Co. of America, and individual Triton employees Mary Anne Wilson, Elaina Gallegos, and Debra Peterson. Prestige sought $134,927.66 for payment bond claims and alleged fraud regarding work performed on a New York City Parks Department amphitheater project. The fraud claims asserted that Triton employees falsely certified forms to the Parks Department, indicating no outstanding payments to subcontractors, while Prestige was still owed funds. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claims, citing lack of standing and failure to meet Rule 9(b) particularity requirements. The Court denied the motion, upholding the New York third-party reliance doctrine and finding Prestige's fraud allegations sufficiently particular.

Fraud claimsMotion to dismissSubcontractor paymentPayment bondThird-party relianceNew York lawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureContract disputeGeneral contractorSurety
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yacono v. Buck Kreighs Co.

Waterman Steamship Co., Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted Buck Kreighs Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing Waterman's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution. The underlying action involved a longshoreman's personal injury aboard a Waterman vessel due to alleged negligence by Kreighs. Applying Federal maritime negligence law, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of Waterman's cross-claims for common law contribution and indemnification, finding the plaintiff's prior dismissal against Kreighs on the merits was dispositive. The court also considered Waterman's claim for implied contractual indemnification under the Ryan doctrine but concluded that Waterman failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it did not demonstrate that its potential liability was based on a non-fault premise. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss Waterman's cross-claims was affirmed.

Personal InjuryMaritime LawAdmiralty LawIndemnity ClaimsContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment AppealLongshoremen InjuriesRyan DoctrineWorkmanlike PerformanceFederal Maritime Negligence Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1988

Francavilla v. Nagar Construction Co.

L.H.L. Realty, owner of an apartment building undergoing renovations, hired Nagar Construction Co., Inc. as the general contractor. A carpenter's helper, Vito Francavilla, employed by a subcontractor, was injured after falling through a stairwell opening. In the original jury trial, L.H.L. Realty was found 30% liable, and judgment was awarded to Nagar defendants against L.H.L. Realty. L.H.L. Realty appealed, seeking indemnification from the Nagar defendants. The court determined that L.H.L. Realty's liability was vicarious under Labor Law §§ 241 and 241-a, and there was no evidence of its own negligence or control over the work. Consequently, L.H.L. Realty was entitled to indemnification from Nagar defendants, who were deemed the parties at fault. The portion of the judgment requiring L.H.L. Realty to pay Nagar defendants was vacated, and the judgment was otherwise affirmed.

IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityStrict LiabilityLabor Law § 241Labor Law § 241-aLabor Law § 200General ContractorOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentStairwell Opening
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ireton-Hewitt v. Champion Home Builders Co.

Plaintiff John Ireton-Hewitt initiated this action against Champion Home Builders Co., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL, along with state claims for unpaid wages/benefits and breach of contract following his employment termination. Champion moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting Ireton-Hewitt's termination was due to his alleged circumvention of revenue recognition policies. The court denied summary judgment on the age discrimination claims, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding pretext, ageist comments, disparate treatment, and replacement by a younger employee. However, Champion's motion for summary judgment was granted for the New York State Labor Law claims concerning vacation, severance, and bonus payments, and for breach of contract claims related to vacation and bonus, as these did not meet statutory wage definitions or policy eligibility. The breach of contract claim for severance pay, however, was allowed to proceed to trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary Judgment MotionNew York State Human Rights LawADEALabor Law ClaimsBreach of ContractUnpaid WagesSeverance PayBonus Eligibility
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 3,660 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