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 02888 [149 AD3d 500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

O'Leary v. S&A Electrical Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff Patrick O'Leary sustained injuries from an electrical shock while overseeing renovation work. He sued S&A Electrical Contracting Corp. and 1435 Broadway, LLC (Owner) under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted O'Leary partial summary judgment on liability, denied Owner's motion to dismiss, and denied Nygard's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Owner summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Nygard International Partnership and dismissing all claims against Nygard NY Retail, LLC, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that O'Leary was engaged in construction work, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) occurred due to negligence, and New York law governed the third-party claims.

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06678 [143 AD3d 759]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2016

Fajardo v. Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp.

Manuel Fajardo sued Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp., Bronx Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare, LLC, and Underbruckner Realty Co., LLC for personal injuries sustained in an elevator accident. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for all defendants and partially granted Mainco's cross-motion for spoliation of evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Mainco. However, it reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Bronx Center, determining it was Fajardo's special employer and thus immune under Workers' Compensation Law. The court also reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Underbruckner, finding it was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain the premises.

personal injuryelevator accidentspoliation of evidencesummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationbreach of contractworkers' compensationspecial employer doctrineout-of-possession landlordstatutory duty
References
25
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03283
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

NG 645 Madison Ave LLC v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured by an electrical explosion while cutting into a ceiling for a temporary sprinkler system installation. He was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (1), (3), and (4) by NG/BLR. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Real Plumbing Corp., finding its responsibilities remote from the accident. The court also found triable issues regarding Zerem Electric Corp.'s negligence but dismissed NG/BLR's contractual indemnification claim against Zerem due to a lack of agreement. The Appellate Division modified the original order to grant Zerem's motion regarding contractual indemnification and otherwise affirmed.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkElectrical HazardSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityIndustrial CodeNegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The plaintiff Union filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to compel arbitration of twelve grievances against the defendant company. The defendant had refused arbitration, arguing that the grievances were nonarbitrable under exclusionary clauses in their collective bargaining agreement. The court, applying principles from the Steelworkers cases and Carey v. General Electric Co., determined that the agreement's exclusionary clauses limited the arbitrator's award-making authority but did not strip them of jurisdiction to hear the grievances. The court also rejected the defendant's ancillary arguments regarding laches, NLRB exclusive jurisdiction, and potential unfair labor practices. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion, holding all grievances were subject to arbitration.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationGrievancesSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationArbitrabilityExclusionary ClausesAward-Making AuthorityJurisdiction
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05931 [153 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Caban v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, Richard Caban, an employee of a carpentry subcontractor, was injured after falling from a scaffold when one of its wheels went into an opening in the floor at a construction site. He sued Plaza Construction Corp. and UBS Real Estate Investments, Inc. (construction manager and building owner) alleging violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence; the defendants then initiated a third-party action against the electrical subcontractor, Forest Electric Corp. for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing certain claims against Plaza and UBS, and granted contractual indemnification, while denying Caban's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Plaza, finding triable issues of fact concerning Plaza's supervisory authority and control over the work. The Appellate Division otherwise affirmed, agreeing that there were triable issues regarding whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injury and upholding the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Forest Electric Corp.

Construction site accidentScaffold fallLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationAppellate reviewConstruction manager liabilityProximate cause
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conderman v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

This case concerns injuries sustained by plaintiffs Beverly A. Conderman, Lee Napolitano, and Robin E. Galland when utility poles fell during an ice storm. The defendants, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation and Ogden Telephone Company, removed and disposed of the fallen poles within 24 hours as part of an emergency response. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment and/or sanctions for spoliation of evidence, arguing the poles were critical and disposed of when litigation was probable. While the Supreme Court denied summary judgment on liability, it granted sanctions, allowing plaintiffs to use res ipsa loquitur. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the motion in its entirety, ruling that sanctions were not warranted as the defendants acted in good faith during an emergency without notice of pending litigation.

Spoliation of evidenceUtility polesIce stormEmergency responseSummary judgmentSanctionsRes ipsa loquiturNegligencePublic safetyDuty to preserve evidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 20,731 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