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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06776 [131 AD3d 1002]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2015

Emanuel v. MMI Mechanical, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an appeal concerning an action for personal injuries. The court dismissed the appeal from an intermediate order, as it merged into the final judgment. The main issue was whether the Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants MMI Mechanical, Inc., Lester Starr, Wartburg Lutheran Home for the Aging, and Wartburg Nursing Home, Inc., based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendants had established their entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a work-related injury had already been decided in a Workers' Compensation Board proceeding and was identical to the issue in the current action. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact or show lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue previously.

collateral estoppelsummary judgmentpersonal injuryworkers' compensation boardappellate reviewjudgment affirmeddismissalwork-related injuryissue preclusionappellate procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delvalle v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC

In a personal injury action, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 15, 2013. The order granted summary judgment to the third-party defendants, Douglas S. Kent and King Freeze Mechanical Corp., dismissing the third-party complaint against them. The Supreme Court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff's injuries, sustained during employment with King Freeze Mechanical Corp., did not constitute a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, concluding that the third-party defendants met their prima facie burden and the defendants/third-party plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionIndemnificationAppellate DivisionThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAffirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2005

Mikcova v. Alps Mechanical, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, sustained personal injuries on July 11, 1999, at Public School 167 in Brooklyn when metal barriers from a scaffold fell on her. She initiated an action against Alps Mechanical, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), § 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed, and summary judgment was granted to the defendant. The appellate court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the incident did not involve an elevation-related hazard, the Industrial Code regulations cited for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim did not apply, and the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's showing that it did not supervise or control her work for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentScaffold AccidentConstruction Site AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. ADJ12014398
Regular
Mar 28, 2025

ROBERT JOLLEY vs. UNITED MECHANICAL, INC.; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Robert Jolley's petition for reconsideration. Jolley, an applicant, sustained an industrial neck injury in 2019 while employed by United Mechanical, Inc. He filed a third-party negligence lawsuit against The Whiting Turner Contracting Company, which settled. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that United Mechanical, Inc. was not negligent and thus entitled to full credit against Jolley's workers' compensation liability from the civil settlement. Jolley challenged this, arguing employer negligence due to constructive notice of hazards and inadequate safety measures. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, affirmed that Jolley failed to establish employer negligence, concluding that the employer did not know, nor should have reasonably known, of the dangerous condition prior to the injury.

Third-party creditEmployer negligenceConstructive noticePetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersLabor CodePermanent partial disabilityTemporary total disabilityCivil lawsuit settlementIncident report
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1990

Paone v. Westwood Village

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action at a construction site. The injured worker and his wife initially sued Westwood Village (owner) and Holiday Management Associates, Inc. (general contractor). Westwood and Holiday then filed third-party complaints against Colonial Mechanical Co. (subcontractor) and High Tech Heating Co. (subcontractor and employer of the injured plaintiff). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Colonial and High Tech, dismissing the third-party complaints. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Colonial and High Tech had no control over the work that caused the injury, thus absolving them of liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The court emphasized that the duty to provide a safe workplace rests with the party having authority to control the injury-producing activity, in this instance, Holiday as the general contractor.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityControl of Work Site
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalloo ex rel. Ulimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc. v. Unlimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Kalloo, Shahrazz Mohammad, and Clement Albertie sued Unlimited Mechanical Co. of New York, Inc. and its president, Nicholas Bournias, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs claimed they were not paid appropriate overtime compensation for hours worked, uncompensated travel time, and, in Mr. Kalloo's case, unpaid wages for his last two weeks of employment. The court found Mr. Bournias individually liable as an employer under both acts and determined that Mr. Kalloo was an employee, not an independent contractor. The court concluded that the defendants failed to pay full overtime and straight time wages for hours worked and travel time, awarding substantial damages and liquidated damages to all three plaintiffs. Defendants' counterclaims for unjust enrichment against Mr. Albertie and tortious interference against Mr. Kalloo were denied.

Wage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationUnpaid Travel TimeFLSA ViolationsNYLL ViolationsEmployer ResponsibilityIndividual Employer LiabilityEmployee ClassificationDamages AwardLiquidated Damages
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2000

Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center & Marina, Inc.

Michael Schuler sustained personal injuries from falling off an inadequately secured ladder while working. He filed a lawsuit against Kings Plaza Shopping Center and Marina, Inc., and Structure, Inc., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) but erred in denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. Additionally, the Supreme Court incorrectly denied the defendants' claim for indemnification against the third-party defendant, Don Burns, doing business as Burns Mechanical. It was determined that Michael Schuler did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Consequently, the order was modified to dismiss the aforementioned negligence and Labor Law claims against the appellants and to dismiss the third-party complaint against Don Burns.

Personal InjuryLadder FallPremises LiabilityLabor Law §240(1)NegligenceIndemnificationContributionGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 12,873 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