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 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
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
Mar 31, 1989

Cutler v. Travelers Insurance

This opinion addresses a class action involving consolidated cases where plaintiffs, acting as class representatives, seek retroactive recovery of attorneys' fees and expenses from defendant workers' compensation carriers. The central issue is whether the holding in Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund (1983), which redefined equitable apportionment of litigation expenses under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) to include future compensation benefits, should be applied retroactively. Defendants argued against retroactivity, asserting that previously settled or adjudicated claims should not be reopened. The court, citing precedents such as Gurnee v Aetna Life & Cas. Co. (1982) and Becker v Huss & Co. (1977), determined that the amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) merely clarified an existing statute rather than creating new liability, thereby supporting retroactive application similar to Kurcsics. Distinguishing the case from Ianielli v North Riv. Ins. Co. (1986), where a formal general release was involved, the court found that the instant cases lacked prior adjudication of contested issues or a general release, warranting retroactivity of the Kelly decision. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that triable issues of fact existed.

RetroactivityWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentClass ActionLitigation ExpensesAttorneys' FeesEquitable ApportionmentInsurance LienFuture BenefitsStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1994

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kenneth Yesmont & Associates, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund (plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit to recover $18,135.35 in workers' compensation premiums from Kenneth Yesmont & Associates (defendant), which included liabilities for subcontractors lacking coverage. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and referred the payroll classification issue to the Superintendent of Insurance for review. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the dispute primarily concerned coverage, a matter within the court's jurisdiction, rather than merely classification. Finding no factual dispute regarding the subcontractors' coverage or the plaintiff's audit calculations, the appellate court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16,369.75.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPayroll ClassificationAdministrative ReviewNew York LawState Insurance FundEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1996

Downes v. Boom Studio, Inc.

Plaintiff, a photographer's assistant, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while adjusting a paper backdrop at the defendant's studio. He subsequently brought an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes a duty on owners to provide safety devices during specific construction-related activities. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) allegation. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's activity at the time of the fall did not constitute 'altering or repairing a building or structure,' thus falling outside the protective scope of the statute.

Photographer's AssistantLadder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstruction SafetyBuilding AlterationDuty to Furnish Safety Devices
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2004

Transcontinental Insurance v. State

Claimant and defendant, acting as co-insurers for a company, became embroiled in a dispute over defense costs and indemnity payments following an employee's grave injury. The employee's injury, recognized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, led to a third-party action against their mutual insured. Although the claimant initially assumed the defense, it requested contribution from the defendant, which subsequently refused to contribute to a $2.5 million settlement. Consequently, the claimant initiated legal action seeking half the settlement amount and incurred defense expenses. The Court of Claims denied both the claimant’s summary judgment motion for reimbursement and the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed these denials, citing triable issues regarding the defendant's duty to indemnify and upholding the defendant's right to a de novo determination of the grave injury issue.

Insurance DisputeCo-insurersDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelAppellate DecisionNew York Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1995

Granieri v. 500 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The court denied defendant 500 Fifth Avenue Associates' cross-motion to amend their answer to include Workers' Compensation as an exclusive remedy and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The denial was based on evidence that control and supervision over the plaintiff was exercised by Newmark Real Estate, Inc., the defendant's managing agent, refuting the claim that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendant. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on the owner for injuries due to a failure to provide proper equipment, and the plaintiff's possible culpable conduct regarding ladder placement would not defeat the claim. Additionally, the court found no error in refusing to reinstate the third affirmative defense given the two-year delay in serving the verification of the bill of particulars.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySpecial EmployeePremises LiabilityAffirmative DefenseCulpable ConductLadder AccidentAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1999

Sanzone v. National Elevator Inspection Service, Inc.

This appellate court modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning summary judgment motions. The initial order had granted summary judgment to National Elevator Inspection Service (NEIS) but denied it for Millar Elevator Industries (Millar). The appellate court determined that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to NEIS, as there was a question of fact regarding whether NEIS assumed a tort duty by conducting a City-mandated elevator safety inspection, potentially breaching it through negligence and causing plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Millar, citing unresolved questions of fact about Millar's role in the elevator's maintenance and repair at the time of the accident. Consequently, the order was modified to deny NEIS's motion and otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentElevator SafetyNegligent InspectionDuty of CareTort LiabilityForeseeable HarmInsurance UnderwritingWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewQuestions of Fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derven v. PH Consulting, Inc.

Marjorie Derven, a salesperson for Advantis Research and Consulting, sued her former employer for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, claiming she was owed higher commissions on large projects with Eli Lilly. Advantis counterclaimed for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of duty of good faith and loyalty, and unfair competition, alleging Derven operated a competing firm while employed and misused company information. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court denied Derven's motion entirely and granted Advantis's motion regarding Derven's fraud and New York Labor Law claims, but denied it concerning breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court also denied Derven's motion for summary judgment on Advantis's counterclaims due to unresolved factual disputes.

Employment ContractCommission DisputesBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsTrade Secrets MisappropriationDuty of LoyaltyUnfair CompetitionSales Representative
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 7,049 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