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

Delcon Construction Corp. v. United States Department of Housing, & Urban Development

Deleon Construction Corporation (plaintiff) filed an action against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its Secretary, Mel Martinez (defendants), based on quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and conversion of trust funds. The defendants moved to join Russand, Inc., as a necessary party, arguing that Russand was a party to the underlying construction contract and Building Loan Agreement, which are central to Deleon's claims. The court found that Russand is a necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because complete relief cannot be accorded among the existing parties without Russand's presence, and its absence could subject HUD to inconsistent obligations. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion and ordered Deleon to join Russand as a necessary party defendant within thirty days, or face dismissal of the action.

Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 19(a)(1)Necessary PartyJoinderQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentConversion of Trust FundsConstruction ContractMortgage InsuranceHUD
References
10
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. 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. 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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
Case No. ADJ137248 (MON 0283474)
Regular
May 21, 2009

GARY BYRNES vs. KAR INVESTMENTS, INC., dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIMPLEX GRINNELL, dba RIGOLI FIRE EXTINGUISHER, KURT REXIUS

This case involves an applicant's Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim against KAR Investments, Inc. (dba Rigoli Fire Extinguisher) and its successor, Simplex Grinnell. The WCAB rescinded a prior finding that barred the applicant from pursuing Simplex due to a statute of limitations issue. The Board ordered Kurt Rexius, the sole shareholder of KAR, joined as a necessary party defendant for full adjudication. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine if discrimination occurred and who is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKAR InvestmentsInc.Rigoli Fire ExtinguisherSimplex GrinnellKurt RexiusLabor Code section 132asuccessor-in-intereststatute of limitationreconsideration
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1999

Fucci v. Shellfish, Inc.

This case involves a third-party defendant appealing an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The order had granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the summons and complaint to add the third-party defendant as a defendant and denied the third-party defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiff's motion to amend, finding that the proposed amendment was without merit because the plaintiff had waived the right to bring a claim under the Jones Act. The order was otherwise affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Personal InjuryJones ActWorkers' Compensation LawAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party DefendantWaiver of RightsSuffolk County
References
4
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 29,342 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