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 07967 [155 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2017

Tishman Construction Corp. v. United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which found United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc. (UHCW) and nonparty David Rodriguez guilty of civil contempt. The contempt finding was due to their failure to adhere to a previously negotiated stipulation and court order entered on May 22, 2012, which outlined conditions for protests held by UHCW. As a result, UHCW was fined $1,000, Rodriguez $500, and attorney fees, costs, and disbursements were awarded. The court affirmed that the appellants clearly disobeyed an unequivocal mandate, thereby prejudicing the plaintiffs' business operations. Furthermore, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over David Rodriguez, president of UHCW, despite him not being personally served, given his active involvement in negotiating the stipulation and his personal violations of the court's mandates.

Civil ContemptStipulation ViolationCourt Order DisobedienceAppellate AffirmationJurisdiction over NonpartyCorporate Officer LiabilityFines and PenaltiesAttorney Fees AwardPrejudice to BusinessProtest Conditions
References
3
Case No. No. 125
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Matter of Joseph A. Terranova, Jr. v. Lehr Construction

Joseph Terranova, a foreman for Lehr Construction Company, sustained a knee injury and sought workers' compensation benefits from Lehr's carrier, New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), and damages from a third-party tortfeasor. After settling with the third party, Terranova was awarded 10% schedule loss of use of his right leg. The Workers' Compensation Board and Appellate Division denied his request for post-settlement apportionment of litigation expenses, citing prior interpretations of Burns v Varriale. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that equitable apportionment of litigation expenses should occur when the present value of a schedule loss of use award is determined, even if after a third-party settlement, to ensure carriers bear their fair share of costs as mandated by Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The court clarified that the timing of the award's quantification, not merely its type, governs the applicability of apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Third-Party Tortfeasor RecoveryEquitable ApportionmentLitigation ExpensesSchedule Loss of UseInsurance Carrier LienFuture Benefits QuantificationPresent ValueAppellate Division ReversalWorkers' Compensation Board Remittal
References
5
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

Cueto v. Hamilton Plaza Co.

Victor Cueto, a construction worker, was injured when a ceiling fell on him at a construction site. After settling his workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Arkay Contracting, Cueto filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendant, Reckson Construction and Development, LLC, initiated a third-party action against Arkay for common-law indemnification and contribution. Special Trades Contracting and Construction Trust, Arkay’s workers’ compensation administrator, moved to dismiss the third-party claim, asserting that Cueto had not suffered a “grave injury” as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would bar such claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the third-party complaint sufficiently alleged a “grave injury” when afforded a liberal construction.

grave injuryworkers compensation lawindemnificationcontributionpersonal injuryconstruction accidentCPLR 3211(a)(7)motion to dismissthird-party actionemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2002

Abdelaal v. Gindi

This case involves an appeal by Astra Construction Corp. and Preferred Mutual Insurance Company from an order granting summary judgment to City Construction Co. The underlying action was commenced by a plaintiff, an employee of City Construction Co., to recover damages for personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The plaintiff received Workers' Compensation benefits from City Construction Co.'s insurer. Astra, a contractor, and its insurer, Preferred Mutual, were brought into a third-party action by the property owners, and Astra subsequently cross-claimed against City Construction Co. for contribution and common-law indemnification. City Construction Co. moved for summary judgment, invoking the Workers' Compensation Law's affirmative defense, arguing that it was responsible for compensation benefits and the worker did not sustain a grave injury, nor was there a written indemnification agreement. The court found that City Construction Co. satisfied its burden for summary judgment, and Astra failed to present admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order, which granted summary judgment dismissing Astra's cross claims against City Construction Co., was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsContributionIndemnificationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityGrave InjuryAppellate DecisionKings County
References
2
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

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
Case No. 534352
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisco Leon

Claimant Francisco Leon, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained on January 30, 2020, after falling from a scaffold. The employer, Monadnock Construction Inc., and its carrier disputed the claim, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The carrier appealed the Board's ruling, contending it lacked substantial evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board holds broad authority in factual determinations, including witness credibility and drawing reasonable inferences from evidence. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Leon's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsScaffold AccidentWork-related InjuryAccidental Injury ClaimAppellate ReviewFactual DeterminationsSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00832 [224 AD3d 1052]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Singh v. Atlas NY Constr. Corp.

Sukhwinder Singh, a claimant, was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation, a subcontractor on a construction project. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability for the claim, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled in favor of NLF, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proper policy cancellation by NLF. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) for policy cancellation and that the Board's credibility determinations, when supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed. The court found NLF failed to meet its burden of establishing proper cancellation.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationInsurance Coverage DisputeNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceNonpayment of PremiumsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 24,123 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