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. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skripek v. Skripek

John Sog, a steelworker, was injured by a falling steel joist at a construction site in Hauppauge while working for H-T Steel Erectors, Inc., a subcontractor for Wen-Mar Construction Management Company, Inc., which was hired by the building owner, D & A Enterprises, Inc. Sog moved for partial summary judgment against D & A and Wen-Mar under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide safety devices. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, citing no evidence of Sog working at an elevated level. The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the statute's protection extends to gravity-related hazards from falling objects, regardless of the worker's elevation. The court granted Sog's motion, finding the defendants failed to rebut evidence of a statutory duty breach and proximate cause, and affirmed Wen-Mar's status as a statutory agent.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory DutyProximate CauseElevated WorkGravity Hazards
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00281
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Santana v. San Mateo Constr. Corp.

William Santana appealed an order dismissing his complaint against San Mateo Construction Corp. and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying dismissal of the first cause of action entirely and partially denying dismissal of the second cause of action. The court held that Administrative Code § 19-142, which mandates prevailing wages for work involving street use or opening, applies broadly and not solely to public works projects. It affirmed that workers, as third-party beneficiaries, can enforce agreements made under this provision, and contractual disclaimers of these rights are void against public policy.

Prevailing wagesAdministrative Code § 19-142Third-party beneficiary rightsContractual disclaimersPublic policyMotions to dismissAppellate reviewLabor lawConstruction contractsStreet permits
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaehn v. Lahr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling while repositioning a prefabricated interior staircase at a construction site. The staircase abruptly fell into the stairwell, causing the plaintiff to fall on top of it. Plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for these injuries, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., and Rochester Friendly Senior Services. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants and third-party defendants appealed this amended order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the worksite was 'elevated' as per Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants' failure to provide necessary safety devices established their liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorksite SafetyStaircase AccidentElevated Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walls v. Turner Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding Labor Law claims against Turner Construction Company and Jordan Construction Company. The original order denied summary judgment to Turner for dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their § 240 (1) claim against Turner, and denied Jordan's motion to amend its answer for a recalcitrant worker defense. It also denied Jordan summary judgment for dismissal of Turner's cross claims for contractual indemnification, contribution, and failure to procure insurance, while granting summary judgment to Turner on that cross claim. The appellate court modified the original order by dismissing Turner's cross claim concerning Jordan's failure to obtain insurance, but otherwise affirmed the order. A dissenting opinion argued that Turner, as construction manager, was not the owner's statutory agent for liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) due to limited authority.

Labor LawStatutory AgentConstruction ManagementContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2007

Uzar v. Louis P. Ciminelli Construction Co.

Plaintiffs appealed an order that granted summary judgment to defendants Turner Construction Company and Louis P Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., dismissing their complaint in a personal injury action arising from a construction accident involving Robert Uzar. The Supreme Court's decision was affirmed, with the appellate court determining that Turner, as construction manager, was not liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) because it lacked responsibility for worker safety and control over subcontractors. Additionally, Ciminelli was found not liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 as it did not have supervisory control over the plaintiff's work or create the dangerous condition. The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that Turner acted as a general contractor or agent of the County, and similarly found no triable issue of fact regarding Ciminelli's liability. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ClaimsContractor LiabilityConstruction ManagerWorker SafetySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

405 Bedford Avenue Development Corp. v. New Metro Construction, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal in a declaratory judgment action where 405 Bedford Avenue Corp. sought indemnification from New Metro Construction, Ltd., and Russo Construction, LLC, for an underlying personal injury action brought by Santos Hernandez, an employee of Russo. Hernandez was injured at a construction site owned by 405 Bedford, leading to a Labor Law claim. The Supreme Court denied New Metro and Russo's motion for summary judgment, which argued they had no contractual obligation to indemnify. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to New Metro and Russo. The reversal was based on the absence of a written indemnification agreement, a requirement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the prior finding that Roth & Sons (New Metro's predecessor) was not liable in the underlying action. The case was remitted for a judgment declaring that New Metro and Russo are not obligated to indemnify 405 Bedford.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryWritten ContractConstruction AccidentLabor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,621 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