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. 87 Civ. 8505 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poling Transportation Corp.

The court addressed a motion by the Long Island Railroad and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LIRR/MTA) to dismiss their indemnification claims and cross-claims against Poling Transportation Corp., the Motor Vessel Poling Bros. No. 7 (collectively, "Poling"), individual claimants David Theophilous, Antonio Coca, Sylvia Coca, and the "Ditmas Group" or "Porcelli Corporations." The LIRR/MTA sought indemnification, which is not barred by New York General Obligations Law § 15-108, unlike contribution claims. However, the court found that the LIRR/MTA failed to establish a right to either implied contractual or implied in law indemnification, nor could it rely on strict liability statutes like the New York Environmental Conservation Law or Navigation Law to transfer its duty of care. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the LIRR/MTA's indemnification claims, thereby resolving all claims against Poling, the Ditmas Group, and the individual claimants stemming from the underlying settlement. Additionally, the court denied subsequent motions to vacate its prior orders but granted a motion to modify certain language within those orders.

IndemnificationContributionJoint TortfeasorsSettlement AgreementGeneral Obligations LawImplied IndemnityStrict LiabilityFederal Court ProcedureAdmiralty JurisdictionPendent Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1998

Walker v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment entered May 20, 1998, which awarded common-law indemnification to the site owner and general contractor against the plaintiff's employer, a subcontractor, in a laborer's personal injury action. The appellate court found that the trial court properly granted the posttrial motion for indemnification. This decision was based on a jury finding that the owner and general contractor were not negligent and did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, whereas the employer did. The general contractor's contractual authority to enforce general safety standards was not considered sufficient to establish requisite supervision or control of the plaintiff's specific work. Furthermore, the employer's express assumption of primary responsibility for worker safety in its subcontract was noted, and its argument regarding the jury's lack of an express ruling on the general contractor’s supervision was rejected, given that such a question was not requested and the finding of no negligence implied no supervision.

Common-law indemnificationThird-party actionPersonal injuriesLabor LawNegligenceSite owner liabilityGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor employerSupervision and controlWorker safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Service Sign Erectors Co. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Plaintiff Service Sign, a subcontractor, initiated an action for damages in breach of contract or quantum meruit against Allied, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, after a billboard Allied had contracted to build for the Authority collapsed due to insufficient support. Allied subsequently filed a third-party action against the Authority, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted dismissal of the first cause of action in the third-party complaint but denied dismissal for the second and third causes of action. On appeal, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that implied indemnification was not available to Allied. The court found that the existing contract between Allied and the Authority explicitly provided for one-way indemnification from Allied to the Authority, thereby precluding any reciprocal implied obligation. Consequently, the appellate court granted the dismissal of all three causes of action in Allied's third-party complaint against the Authority, affirming the modification without costs.

IndemnificationImplied IndemnificationExpress ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubcontractorAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
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

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

Matthius v. Platinum Estates, Inc.

JAC Construction Corp. appealed an order that granted indemnification to Grymes Hill Estates, Inc., John Culotta, Robert Ricca, and Platinum Estates, Inc., for costs and attorney's fees in a personal injury action. JAC argued that a subsequent agreement with a merger clause superseded a prior indemnification agreement. The court found the January 17th agreement to be incomplete and ambiguous, allowing the admission of the prior indemnification agreement as extrinsic evidence without contradicting the later contract. The indemnification agreement clarified insurance coverage and indemnification obligations. The court also noted that the merger clause did not extinguish the indemnification agreement because the two contracts dealt with different subject matter. Furthermore, JAC demonstrated its intent to be bound by the indemnification agreement by obtaining the required insurance. Therefore, the referee's report, finding the respondents entitled to indemnification, was properly confirmed.

IndemnificationMerger ClauseParol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAmbiguityExtrinsic EvidenceGeneral ContractorOwnerPersonal InjuriesAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1997

Durabla Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiff, a former distributor of asbestos-containing gasket materials, sought reimbursement from manufacturers Goodyear and Goodyear Canada for settlements and costs from related lawsuits. The plaintiff alleged common law indemnification, contractual indemnification, breach of warranties, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss several causes of action. The Court dismissed the common law indemnification claim and fraud claims, but denied dismissal for the contractual indemnification and implied warranty indemnification claims. Plaintiff was granted leave to replead the fraud claims but denied leave to amend the common law indemnification claim.

IndemnificationContributionStrict LiabilityProduct LiabilityAsbestosFraud ClaimsMotion to DismissLeave to AmendPleadingsNew York Law
References
14
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,398 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