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. 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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03149 [238 AD3d 619]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Sarante v. Courtlandt Dev., LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a construction worker's injury. Plaintiff Jose Sarante was injured when a chain block pulley system, used to hoist a steel beam, collapsed. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for Sarante on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the pulley system to be a failed safety device. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants Courtlandt Development, LLC and AB Capstone Builders Corp. on their Labor Law claims and contractual indemnification claims against third-party defendant Gold Lion Steel, LLC, noting the right to indemnification had not vested. Gold Lion's motions for dismissal of third-party claims were denied due to lack of evidence regarding "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed as plaintiff decided not to pursue it.

Labor Law § 240(1)Falling ObjectSafety DeviceChain Block Pulley SystemContractual IndemnificationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave Injury
References
8
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Jose Madeira at a construction site. The plaintiff sued Affordable Housing, the site owner, and Mountain Developers, the general contractor, under New York Labor Law § 240(1) (Scaffold Law). A jury in Phase I found the defendants liable and awarded Jose Madeira $638,671.63. In Phase II, the jury determined that the third-party defendant, Cleidson Silva d/b/a C & L Construction (plaintiff's employer), was 82% liable for the accident, while Mountain and Affordable were each 9% liable based on an indemnification agreement. The court addresses post-trial motions from both third-party defendants (Silva) for a new trial and third-party plaintiffs (Affordable and Mountain) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which are denied. Key issues included the plaintiff's right to lost earnings as an undocumented worker, the jury's apportionment of fault, and the preclusion of proof regarding lack of insurance.

Scaffold LawLabor Law § 240(1)Indemnification AgreementThird-Party ActionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictNew Trial MotionUndocumented Worker RightsLost EarningsImmigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Apportionment of Fault
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Lopez v. 157-161 E. 28th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02063
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Hasenzahl v. 44th St. Dev. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, considered an appeal concerning a Supreme Court order that granted a motion to sever and stay a second third-party action, and denied a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in severing and staying the second third-party action, citing that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. It further noted that Gateway and Woodworks' subcontracts provided for joint and several liability, allowing for apportionment in a separate proceeding. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting Gateway's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against it. This dismissal was based on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff, Gateway's employer, did not sustain a grave injury.

Appellate PracticeThird-Party ActionsSeverance and StaySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryJoint and Several LiabilitySubcontractor Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2003

Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal regarding an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on a third-party action for indemnification and granting a cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, noting that the plaintiff's right eye injury did not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Consequently, the defendant could not obtain indemnification from the plaintiff's employer without a prior written contract. The defendant's offered contract was unsigned, making it unavailable for indemnification, regardless of the employer's supervision or general compliance with its unexecuted terms.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryContract LawUnsigned AgreementEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewBronx County Supreme Court
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,202 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