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
Jan 22, 1999

Ma v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

The defendants, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., and Zhidong Wu, appealed from an order denying summary judgment to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. The plaintiff cross-appealed from the same order, which granted summary judgment dismissing the action against Zhidong Wu. The appellate court dismissed Zhidong Wu's appeal on the grounds that he was not aggrieved by the provision. The court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., finding it failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding its alleged negligent maintenance. The plaintiff's cause of action against Zhidong Wu and any vicarious liability claim against Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., for Zhidong Wu's negligence were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Automobile accidentPersonal injurySummary judgmentNegligenceVicarious liabilityWorkers' CompensationAppellate reviewCross-appealJudicial dismissalOrder affirmed
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1997

Delio v. Percom Equipment Rental Corp.

Cono Delio, Jr., an employee of Perez Interboro Asphalt Co., sustained personal injuries during employment from a dump truck rented from Percom Equipment Rental Corp. The plaintiffs sued Percom, alleging negligent maintenance. The Supreme Court denied Percom's motion for summary judgment, citing that Perez Interboro's Workers’ Compensation immunity did not shield Percom. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, determining that Perez Interboro was responsible for vehicle maintenance under its rental agreement with Percom. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of negligence by Percom, leading to the granting of summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentRental AgreementVehicle MaintenanceAppellate ReversalThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityKings CountyDump Truck Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szarewicz v. Alboro Crane Rental Corp.

The interlocutory judgment from Supreme Court, Kings County, favoring the plaintiff against Alboro Crane Rental Corp. on liability, was unanimously reversed and vacated on appeal. The plaintiff, a structural steel worker employed by Harrod Steel Erectors, was injured when knocked off a steel beam, allegedly due to a negligent crane operator. A key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the operator and Alboro, which owned and leased the crane to Harrod. The court found insufficient evidence to establish this relationship, noting the operator was not on Alboro's payroll and Alboro lacked control over his work. Consequently, the complaint against Alboro was dismissed, as liability could not be based on the rental agreement or control theory.

Crane accidentliabilityemployer-employee relationshipvicarious liabilitynegligenceleased equipmentappellate reviewjudgment reversalstructural steel workercrane operator control
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metro Furniture Rental, Inc. v. Alessi

This action was initiated by Metro Furniture Rental, Inc., alleging violations of RICO against Michael Alessi, Chemical Bank, and Buchbinder Stein Tunick & Platkin, along with pendent state claims for breach of contract, accountant malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion. The case, originally filed in state court, was removed to the federal district court. Defendant Alessi's motion to remand to state court was denied as untimely. Defendants Chemical Bank and Buchbinder's motions to dismiss were granted in part, specifically dismissing the plaintiff's RICO claim due to insufficient particularity in pleading fraud and lack of evidence for a knowing agreement among defendants, and rejecting respondeat superior for Chemical Bank. The remaining pendent state claims were remanded sua sponte to the New York State Supreme Court.

RICO ActRacketeeringFraudMail FraudWire FraudAccountant MalpracticeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyConversionMotion to Remand
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumpkin v. Albany Truck Rental Service, Inc.

This case concerns three related actions stemming from a truck accident that resulted in the death of the plaintiff's decedent, who was a passenger. Both the decedent and the driver, David L. Sinnamon, were employed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services, and the accident occurred during their employment. The original plaintiff sued General Tire and Rubber Company, Albany Truck Rental Service, Inc., and Sinnamon. Sinnamon was dismissed based on the Workers' Compensation Law. Subsequently, General Tire and Albany Truck initiated third-party actions against Sinnamon for indemnity or contribution, which were also dismissed by Special Term, citing Correction Law § 24. The Appellate Division affirmed these dismissals, ruling that Correction Law § 24 clearly bars such third-party actions against employees of the Department of Correctional Services acting within the scope of their employment. The court also rejected the appellants' equal protection challenge to the statute.

Workers' Compensation LawCorrection Law Section 24IndemnificationContributionThird-Party LiabilityGovernment ImmunityEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationEqual Protection ChallengeMotor Vehicle Accident
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07390
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Burhmaster v. CRM Rental Mgt., Inc.

Timothy Burhmaster, a roofer, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while performing emergency repairs. He initiated an action alleging negligence and Labor Law violations against CRM Rental Management, Inc., Colonial Square entities, and Mercer Construction Company LLC. The Supreme Court granted Burhmaster partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the absence of safety devices, and also granted Mercer's motion for conditional contractual indemnification against its subcontractor, Robert Young Jr. Young appealed, and Mercer cross-appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, confirming that the lack of safety equipment was a proximate cause of Burhmaster's injuries and that the parties' conduct constituted a waiver of the contractual requirement for written change orders, thus upholding Mercer's indemnification claim.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction Site AccidentRoofing FallWorker SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnitySubcontractor DisputeWaiver of Contract TermsAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00760
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2020

Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Clark Rigging & Rental Corp. commenced an action against Tri-Krete Limited, KC Precast, LLC, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and to recover on a payment bond, stemming from work KC Precast hired plaintiff to perform. Tri-Krete moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege Tri-Krete is an alter ego of KC Precast. The Supreme Court partially granted Tri-Krete's motion, dismissing the breach of contract and account stated causes of action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying Tri-Krete's motion in its entirety and reinstating the dismissed causes of action. The court concluded that plaintiff sufficiently alleged Tri-Krete is an alter ego of KC Precast, citing allegations of common control, intermingling of assets, and fraudulent inducement.

Alter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingBreach of ContractAccount StatedFraudulent InducementMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Appellate ReviewConstruction LawPayment Bond Claim
References
9
Case No. No. 201
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Matter of Parkhurst v. United Rentals Aerial Equipment, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning claims filed by Bob Parkhurst and James Arthur Robinson. Both claims are against their respective employers, United Rentals Aerial Equipment, Inc. and Gould Pumps ITT, and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the claims and ultimately affirmed the previous order. The decision references a related case, Matter of Raynor v Landmark Chrysler, decided on the same day.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsAppellate AffirmationNew York Court of AppealsConsolidated CasesEmployer LiabilityGovernment Agency RespondentJudicial ConcurrenceLegal PrecedentOpinion of the Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara J. Morris rented a vehicle from Snappy Car Rental, and the agreement included indemnification clauses. She was later injured in an accident while her husband was driving the rental car and subsequently sued Snappy Car Rental and others. Snappy Car Rental counterclaimed for contractual indemnification and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court initially granted Snappy's motion for conditional summary judgment on indemnification and fees. However, the appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision was against public policy as it attempted to circumvent Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Consequently, Snappy's entitlement to indemnification was limited to liability exceeding its statutorily mandated coverage, and its request for attorney's fees was denied.

rental car agreementindemnification clausepublic policyVehicle and Traffic Lawvicarious liabilityinsurance coveragesummary judgmentcontract interpretationpersonal injuryappellate review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 1999

Rodriguez v. Lodato Rental, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses and granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs sustained injuries while riding as passengers in a van driven by coemployee Belarmino Rodriguez, who was deemed immune from suit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). Consequently, Lodato Rental, Inc., the van's owner, could only be held liable for its own independent negligence, not vicariously. As the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment and the plaintiffs failed to provide admissible evidence of independent negligence by Lodato Rental, Inc., the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationCo-employee ImmunityVicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionVehicle AccidentNegligenceQueens CountyNew York
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 74 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