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

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.)

This case concerns Arthur Andersen LLP's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against it by Barclays PLC and its affiliated entities. Andersen argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. The original adversary proceeding was initiated by Enron Corp. against Barclays and other banks, alleging various common law claims. Barclays, in turn, sought contribution from Andersen, claiming Andersen knowingly played a role in misrepresentations in Enron's financial statements. The court ultimately concluded that bankruptcy courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Barclays' third-party complaint, leading to its dismissal.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy CourtThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsRelated to JurisdictionArticle III PowersBankruptcy Code
References
21
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guijarro v. V.R.H. Construction Corp.

Ernesto Guijarro, an employee of Guaranteed Clean Air, Inc., sustained injuries from a 13-foot fall from a scaffold during a renovation project at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He and his wife subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against V.R.H. Construction Corp., Delta Airlines, Inc., and Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. In turn, these entities, collectively referred to as the respondents, initiated a third-party action against Guaranteed Clean Air, Inc. for contractual indemnification. Guaranteed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which bars such actions unless there is a 'grave injury' or a written indemnification contract executed prior to the accident. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court ruled that because the indemnification contract was not entered into before the accident, as explicitly required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, Guaranteed's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and the third-party complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentIndemnification ContractWorkers' Compensation LawAsbestos AbatementConstruction AccidentScaffold FallGrave InjuryContractual Indemnity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2001

Palacio v. Textron, Inc.

The Appellate Division affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The initial action involved a plaintiff who sustained a hand injury while working for Piándome Country Club, Inc., and subsequently sued Textron, Inc., the lawnmower manufacturer and seller. Textron then brought a third-party action against Piándome seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. Piándome successfully argued for dismissal, asserting that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Appellate Division concluded that Textron failed to present sufficient evidence to create a factual issue regarding the severity of the plaintiff's injuries, thus affirming the dismissal.

Personal InjuryThird-Party LitigationContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave Injury DoctrineMotion PracticeAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrett v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

The court reviewed an appeal regarding the sufficiency of third-party complaints filed by the lessee, owners, and developers of a Holiday Inn (original defendants and third-party plaintiffs) against the Town of Greece (third-party defendant). The original negligence actions sought damages after a motel fire. The third-party plaintiffs sought contribution and indemnity from the town, despite the town having been previously dismissed from the primary actions due to owing no duty to the original plaintiffs. The court reversed the Special Term's decision, ruling that a third-party action for contribution or indemnity requires the third-party defendant to have violated a duty owed to the original plaintiff. As the Town of Greece owed no such duty, the third-party complaints were dismissed, aligning with established rules for joint tort-feasors and principles of unjust enrichment.

Third-party complaintContributionIndemnityNegligenceDuty of careMunicipal liabilityTort-feasorsUnjust enrichmentFire damagesCertificate of occupancy
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1998

Browning v. County Fence Co.

The Supreme Court of Westchester County erred in applying Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as amended, to a third-party action. The appellate court determined that the amendment should be applied prospectively to actions commenced by employees after its effective date. Although the third-party action itself was commenced after the amendment's effective date, the main action by the employee predated it. Consequently, the amendment was deemed inapplicable, leading to the reversal of the order that had dismissed the third-party complaint. The third-party complaint was therefore reinstated.

Personal Injury DamagesThird-Party ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Statutory AmendmentsProspective ApplicationAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissIndemnificationNew York Supreme CourtCase Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1995

Maksymowicz v. New York City Board of Education

This case involves a judgment affirming the dismissal of a third-party complaint. The original action was brought by a plaintiff employee against defendant owners of premises, who then initiated a third-party action against a third-party defendant employer. The employer's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the third-party complaint, was granted by the Supreme Court, New York County. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs. The dismissal was predicated on the antisubrogation rule, as the owners were identified as additional insureds under the general liability insurance policy purchased by the employer. The court rejected the argument that an exclusion for work-related employee claims rendered the antisubrogation rule inapplicable, emphasizing the 'insured contract' clause within the policy which covered the employer's obligation to indemnify the owners under an asbestos removal contract.

antisubrogation rulegeneral liability insuranceworkers' compensation policyinsured contract clauseemployer indemnityasbestos removal contractsummary judgmentthird-party actionadditional insuredsemployee claims
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2015

Baer v. Law Offices of Moran & Gottlieb

Plaintiffs sued a law firm and an individual attorney (defendants) for legal malpractice, alleging their failure to assert derivative claims from their son's medical malpractice case before the statute of limitations expired. The defendants had referred plaintiffs to third-party defendant David J. Clegg, who filed the son's complaint but omitted the parents' derivative claims. In the subsequent legal malpractice action, the original defendants impleaded Clegg, seeking contribution or indemnification. Clegg successfully moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the derivative claims were already time-barred when he became involved in the case. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Clegg could not be held negligent for failing to plead an indisputably time-barred cause of action.

Legal malpracticeStatute of limitationsDerivative claimsInfancy tollContinuous treatment tollThird-party complaintContributionIndemnificationMedical malpracticeDismissal of action
References
19
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 10,330 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