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
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
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
Apr 18, 2003

Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal regarding an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on a third-party action for indemnification and granting a cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, noting that the plaintiff's right eye injury did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Consequently, the defendant could not obtain indemnification from the plaintiff's employer without a prior written contract. The defendant's offered contract was unsigned, making it unavailable for indemnification, regardless of the employer's supervision or general compliance with its unexecuted terms.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryContract LawUnsigned AgreementEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewBronx County Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1997

Pryer v. Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp.

Timothy Pryer, a corrections officer, sustained personal injuries after slipping on sand at the Nassau County Corrections Facility, allegedly due to ongoing construction. He filed a lawsuit against the main contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., and a subcontractor, S&L Concrete Construction Corp., under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted summary judgment motions by the defendants, dismissing Pryer's Labor Law causes of action and the third-party defendant's counterclaims. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Pryer was not engaged in activities enumerated in Labor Law §§ 240 or 241(6) and was not injured in a construction area, thus precluding his claims and the related counterclaims.

Personal injurySlip and fallConstruction accidentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewLabor LawSubcontractor liabilityCorrections officerThird-party claimDuty of care
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04372 [219 AD3d 819]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis Iannaccone, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted summary judgment dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Iannaccone alleged personal injuries suffered in October 2015 while installing camera systems for United Natural Foods, Inc., when an extension ladder he was on, resting on landscaping rocks, shifted and caused him to fall. The Supreme Court initially granted motions by the defendant and third-party defendants (Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., and Protection One Systems, Inc.) to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant and third-party defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Iannaccone's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division noted Iannaccone's testimony about the unsafe alternative placement of the ladder and the lack of evidence that available safety ties, not at the job site, would have prevented the fall. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim were denied.

Personal InjuryLadder SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Summary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
16
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02184 [237 AD3d 891]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

Cianciulli v. Urban Found./Engg., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning personal injuries sustained by Joseph Cianciulli, a project executive, at a construction site in Brooklyn. Cianciulli was allegedly struck by an excavator bucket while inspecting a disputed work area. The original Supreme Court order granted summary judgment dismissing various Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against several defendants and third-party contractual indemnification claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action against the Urban defendants, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against Bond GC, and the third-party contractual indemnification claims. The court found that triable issues of fact remained regarding the defendants' authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work and their potential negligence.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentExcavation WorkSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySafe Place to Work
References
25
Case No. CA 14-00281
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAYER, CHERYL D. v. CONRAD, MATTHEW J.

This wrongful death action arose from a construction site accident where the plaintiff's decedent, a Fisher Concrete, Inc. employee, was fatally injured when an unsecured embankment collapsed. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence, while defendants filed a third-party action seeking indemnification from Fisher Concrete, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing an issue of fact regarding the defendants' actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification, concluding that the defendants could not be held vicariously liable for the third party's negligence.

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityExcavation WorkErie CountyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04384 [196 AD3d 609]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2021

Rampersaud v. Hsieh Hsu Mach. Co., Ltd.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury action. Plaintiff Rudenauth Rampersaud was injured while operating machinery during employment with Ares Printing and Packaging Corporation. He and his wife sued the manufacturer, Hsieh Hsu Machinery Co., Ltd., and service provider, Orbit Electrical Services Corp. Ares, as a third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint and cross-claims. The Appellate Division dismissed part of the appeal as academic, modified the lower court's order by granting summary judgment to Ares dismissing the third-party complaint, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Hsieh's cross-claims against Ares. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Ares's potential negligence and whether the injured plaintiff suffered a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContributionCorrugator MachineIndustrial AccidentEmployer NegligenceProximate CauseGrave Injury
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 31,011 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