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 03, 1997

Marte v. St. John's University

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04859 [162 AD3d 1673]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Kipp v. Marinus Homes, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert Kipp commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on a construction project, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, denied Kipp's motion for partial summary judgment and partially denied motions by defendants and a third-party defendant seeking to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the order. The Appellate Division granted the defendants' and third-party defendant's motions, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the defendants. The court determined that the plaintiff's own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries because adequate safety devices were available, and he either misused or failed to properly use them, despite his claims about ladder placement. The dissenting opinion argued against finding sole proximate cause given the nondelegable duty to properly place safety devices.

Construction AccidentLadder FallLabor Law ViolationSole Proximate CauseSafety DevicesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionWorker Negligence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schiro v. Catania

This case concerns a motion filed by third-party defendant John Schiro to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against him by the Joint Board of Shirt, Leisure Wear, Robe, G-love and Rainwear Workers Union, acting as third-party plaintiff. Schiro argued that the Union's attorney lacked proper authorization to file the complaint and that the verification was improper. He contended that the Union, his employer, had an insurance policy covering him and a policy against seeking indemnity from employees involved in accidents during employment. The court denied the motion, finding that the affidavits presented by Schiro and his attorney constituted hearsay and failed to sufficiently demonstrate a lack of authority by the Union's attorney, while reaffirming the defendant's right to challenge such authority. The court granted leave to renew the motion upon proper papers.

Motion to DismissThird-Party ActionAttorney AuthorityPleading VerificationHearsay EvidenceCivil Practice ActEmployer LiabilityInsurance CoverageCooperation ClauseActive Tort-feasor
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02669 [227 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2024

Noel v. 336 E 95th Realty LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party complaint filed by 336 E 95th Realty LLC (Owner) against Champion Elevator Corp. The Owner sought indemnification or contribution from Champion Elevator Corp. under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court found that the plaintiff, Keron Noel, did not suffer a "grave injury" as defined by the statute. Furthermore, there was no binding contractual indemnification agreement between the parties. Therefore, the employer, Champion Elevator Corp., was not liable to the third-party plaintiff, and the dismissal of the complaint was proper.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryIndemnificationContributionThird-Party ComplaintDismissalAppellate DivisionEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

Hernandez v. Opera Owners, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00671
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

76th & Broadway, LLC v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

This case originated from a third-party action where General Glass & Metal, LLC appealed a judgment dismissing its third-party answer and an order that, upon reconsideration, upheld the decision to strike its third-party answer and deny dismissal of the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, treated General Glass's motion to 'modify' as a motion for reargument, making the subsequent order appealable due to the motion court's address of its merits. The Supreme Court's decision to strike General Glass's answer was affirmed, as the record demonstrated a willful failure to comply with multiple court orders for deposition appearances, rather than an inability to locate a witness. Additionally, the court properly denied General Glass's motion for summary dismissal of the third-party complaint, confirming that the Workers' Compensation Law does not preclude third-party plaintiffs from seeking to enforce contractual indemnification and insurance coverage obligations. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the third-party answer was unanimously affirmed, and the appeal from the order was dismissed as subsumed by the appeal from the judgment.

reargumentappealabilityCPLRstriking answerdeposition non-compliancecontractual indemnificationinsurance coveragethird-party actionAppellate DivisionSupreme Court decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 1984

Goldstein v. Barco of California, Inc.

The fourth-party defendant, Nathan’s Famous of Massapequa, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to amend its fourth-party answer. The proposed amendment aimed to plead the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the order, holding that an employer may be liable in a third-party or fourth-party action for an employee's injury, even if a direct action by the employee against the employer would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court cited precedent, including Dole v Dow Chem. Co., affirming that workers' compensation provisions do not bar such actions for indemnification or contribution. Consequently, the motion to amend the answer was deemed to be devoid of merit and was properly denied.

Workers' CompensationFourth-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendIndemnificationContributionExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPleading Amendment
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01354
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Deschaine v. Tricon Constr., LLC

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order which granted motions to renew filed by third-party plaintiffs Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Michael Boyle, and Tricon Construction, LLC along with C.P. Plaza Limited Partnership. The motions sought to vacate a previous order that had dismissed their third-party claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against AMZ Construction Services, Inc. Upon renewal, these claims were reinstated. The court found that new expert reports submitted by the plaintiff, Robert Deschaine, raised a factual dispute regarding whether he sustained a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically brain injuries that rendered him unemployable in any capacity. This issue of fact justified the renewal and reinstatement of the third-party claims.

Appellate PracticeRenewal MotionSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawBrain InjuriesUnemployabilityProcedural Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,093 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