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
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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by K.A.B. Realty, Inc. (KAB), the defendant and third-party plaintiff, from an order denying its motion for summary judgment on third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification, and for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff was injured while working on a construction project for KAB, who then initiated a third-party action against Marin Construction Corp. (Marin) for indemnification. The appellate court modified the lower court's order. It granted KAB summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim, finding KAB was not negligent. However, it also granted Marin summary judgment dismissing KAB's common-law indemnification claim because the plaintiff was deemed Marin's special employee, barring the claim under Workers' Compensation Law. The branch of the motion concerning damages for breach of contract was properly denied.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecial EmployeeVicarious LiabilityAppellate ProcedureConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Nenadovic v. P.T. Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Stanimir Nenadovic, an employee of A-Tech, was injured when a 50-foot suspended scaffold, shared by three workers despite a two-person capacity, broke. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied Liro's motion to renew and ET. Tenants Corp.'s motion to renew, while granting Nenadovic partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Liberty Architectural Products Co., Inc. On appeal, all these orders were unanimously affirmed. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment motions by ET. Tenants Corp. and Prudential & Douglas Elliman regarding contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, breach of contract claims against Liro, Liberty, and A-Tech, and dismissal of Nenadovic's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims against them. The appellate court found plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), holding Liberty as a statutory agent, and upheld the denial of indemnification and dismissal motions due to remaining issues of negligence and prematurity.

Scaffold collapseLabor Law § 240(1) claimSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationBreach of contractStatutory agentPersonal injuryConstruction accidentWorker safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hundley v. Prince Street Associates

The plaintiff, John Hundley, an employee of Eagle Contracting Company, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during a roofing project for which Gordon Construction, Inc. was the general contractor and Prince Street Associates was the building owner. This decision addresses appeals from a Supreme Court order regarding summary judgment motions for Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims, as well as contractual and common-law indemnification claims among Gordon, Prince, Eagle, and R. Smith Restoration. The Appellate Division dismissed certain appeals for lack of aggrievement and affirmed the order in part, finding that factual questions persist regarding Gordon's control over Hundley's work, thus impacting indemnification claims.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationLabor LawConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
5
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

Podhaskie v. Seventh Chelsea Associates

A judgment entered February 14, 2003, which granted summary judgment to third-party defendant Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Company, Inc. (Regional) dismissing a third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnity, was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the third-party complaint and all cross claims. The case involves an injured carpenter, employed by Regional, who sued the owner (Seventh Chelsea Associates) and construction manager (HRH Construction Corporation) for personal injuries under the Labor Law. These appellants then brought a third-party action against Regional for contractual indemnification. The lower court dismissed this claim, finding no existing contract for indemnity at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court found an issue of fact regarding whether various documents, including a bid proposal, certificate of insurance, and a later formal contract, demonstrated Regional's intent for the indemnification to apply retroactively, thus precluding summary dismissal.

Contractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Project
References
6
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walls v. Sano-Rubin Construction Co.

A construction laborer was injured on a work site, leading to claims of negligence and Labor Law violations against the property owner, general contractor, and a subcontractor (AMC). AMC argued the injured worker's claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law, asserting that its employee, Marvin Easterling, was a 'special employee' of the injured worker's employer. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against AMC but later reinstated them. The appellate court affirmed the reinstatement of the vicarious liability claim against AMC, ruling that AMC failed to prove special employee status. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment for contractual indemnification and defense to the property owner and general contractor against AMC, finding AMC contractually obligated for the acts of its employee.

construction accidentvicarious liabilityspecial employeeworkers' compensationindemnificationsummary judgmentLabor Lawnegligencesubcontractorgeneral contractor
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 25,088 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