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. 2015 NY Slip Op 01380 [125 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2015

DaSilva v. Haks Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors

Plaintiff Paulo DaSilva, a construction worker, was injured after falling from a scaffold while working on the Croton Falls Dam project. He brought an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against Haks Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, P.C., Earth Tech Northeast, Inc., and Haks Et Joint Venture, who were construction managers for the project. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that under their construction management services contract, defendants did not have supervisory control over the construction methods and were not statutory agents for liability under the Labor Law sections. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, stating that general supervisory duties were insufficient for liability and that plaintiff failed to present evidentiary support to contradict the contract terms or suggest that further discovery would yield relevant evidence.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentLabor LawWorkplace Safety
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04540 [230 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2024

Chavarria v. Bruce Nagel & Partners Architects, P.C.

Jose Chavarria, an employee, sustained personal injuries on a renovation project and initiated an action against Bruce Nagel & Partners Architects, P.C. (Nagel, P.C.) and David L. Wasserman and Ellen F. Wasserman (the Wassermans). Nagel, P.C. had a contract with the Wassermans for architectural services, which included a provision requiring the Wassermans to ensure Nagel, P.C. was an additional insured on the general contractor's liability policy, regardless of whether construction administration services were regular or ad hoc. Despite an addendum modifying the frequency of services, the insurance requirement remained. Following Chavarria's injury, Nagel, P.C. moved for summary judgment to dismiss Chavarria's complaint and on its cross-claim for breach of contract against the Wassermans. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Nagel, P.C.'s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against Nagel, P.C. and finding the Wassermans liable for breach of contract.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractCross-ClaimsAppellate ReviewConstruction Administration ServicesGeneral Liability InsuranceAdditional Insured ClauseLabor LawSafe WorkplaceContract Interpretation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C. v. Thor Engineers, P.A.

Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C. sued Thor Engineers, P.A. for damages related to allegedly defective structural design. Thor subsequently filed a Third-Party Complaint against Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, the project owner and developer, seeking contribution and indemnification. Atlantic Realty moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court, applying New York law, found that Thor failed to allege the necessary breach of duty by Atlantic Realty to sustain claims for either contribution or common-law indemnification. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint was granted.

Contribution claimIndemnification claimMotion to dismissBreach of dutyThird-party complaintNew York lawStructural engineeringProfessional negligenceContractual disputeTort liability
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diocese of Rochester v. R-Monde Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses whether an architect, allegedly failing to make adequate periodic inspections and learn of defects, is immune from liability due to a contract provision disclaiming responsibility for the contractor's acts. Plaintiffs, the Diocese of Rochester and St. Theodore’s Church, sued their architect, Starks Wurzer Patterson Romeo Architects, P.C., and others after a fire caused by faulty insulation installation. The architect moved for summary judgment, arguing their contract absolved them of supervisory duties and responsibility for the contractor's methods. The court denied the architect's motion for summary judgment, except for the breach of warranty claims (which were dismissed), holding that the exculpatory clause did not immunize the architect from liability for breaches of its own contractual duties to inspect and inform the owner, rejecting the argument that lack of knowledge due to insufficient inspection could be a defense.

architect liabilitysummary judgment motionbreach of contractnegligenceexculpatory clauseconstruction defectsfire damageinsulation installationduty to inspectcontract interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc.

This case concerns a wage-and-hour action filed by Vincent E. Boice against M+W U.S., Inc., Total Facility Solutions, Inc., and M+W Zander N.Y. Architects, P.C. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a collective action and compel discovery. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended denying conditional certification without prejudice but granting limited pre-certification discovery for employee contact information. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby accepted and adopted this Report-Recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to strike the declaration and the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification while granting in part the motion to compel discovery. The court also denied other relief sought by the plaintiff and reopened the discovery period for 90 days.

FLSAWage-and-Hour ActionCollective ActionConditional CertificationDiscovery MotionOvertime CompensationJudicial ReviewEmployment LawClass Action ProcedureMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
60
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07317
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2020

McMahon v. Cobblestone Lofts Condominium

The Cobblestone Lofts Condominium (Cobblestone) appealed an order denying its motion to vacate a note of issue and compel the production of an unredacted settlement agreement. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court ruled that Cobblestone's argument regarding untimely objections was unpreserved for review, as it was never raised before the IAS court. Furthermore, the plaintiffs and Walter B. Melvin Architects, LLC (WBMA) had complied with a preliminary conference order that explicitly limited disclosure to a redacted settlement agreement. Cobblestone failed to demonstrate that the unredacted settlement agreement terms were material or necessary to its defense or claims.

Discovery disputeNote of issueSettlement agreementUnpreserved argumentAppellate reviewCPLR 3101 (a)Materiality of evidencePreliminary conference orderRedactionTimeliness of objections
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc. v. Town of Charlton

Plaintiff Schmidt & Schmidt, Inc., a general construction contractor, sued J. Paul Vosburgh Architect, EC. for tortious interference with contract after the Town of Charlton terminated plaintiff's contract. The architect was retained by the Town to provide design and contract administration services. The Town terminated plaintiff's contract based on a consultant's report detailing plaintiff's performance failures and delays. The Supreme Court denied the architect's motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff's tortious interference claim. On appeal, the order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and plaintiff's fifth cause of action was dismissed, as plaintiff failed to prove the architect's conduct was the 'but for' cause of the contract termination.

tortious interference with contractsummary judgmentconstruction contractcontractual disputearchitect liabilityagency relationshipcausationappellate reviewbreach of contractprofessional services
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1985

Jaroszewicz v. Facilities Development Corp.

Plaintiff's husband, a maintenance mechanic, was electrocuted while trouble-shooting an electrical problem at the Westchester County Medical Center. Plaintiff sued the project architects, C. F. Murphy Associates and Lothrop Associates, alleging liability under Labor Law § 241 for breach of the duty to provide a safe place to work, and under a common-law negligence theory for improper supervision. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Labor Law § 241 did not apply as the accident occurred after construction completion. Furthermore, the architects were not liable for common-law negligence as their contractual duty was to the Facilities Development Corporation, they lacked control over construction methods, and no active malfeasance was proven.

construction accidentelectrocutionarchitect liabilitysummary judgmentLabor Lawduty to provide safe place to workimproper supervisionpost-construction accidentagency liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KBL CORP. v. Arnouts

KBL Corp., a residential home builder, brought an action against architects Robert A. Arnouts and Arnouts Associates Architects, Inc. for contribution, indemnification, and inducement to infringe. KBL had previously settled two copyright infringement lawsuits filed by Frank Betz Associates, Inc. related to home designs. KBL asserted that Arnouts, who modified and approved the designs, was liable for the infringement. The court analyzed each claim, concluding that federal and New York State law do not provide a right to contribution or indemnification among co-infringers in this context, nor an independent claim for inducement to infringe distinct from contributory infringement. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the case was closed.

Copyright InfringementContributionIndemnificationInducement to InfringeFederal Common LawNew York State LawMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Co-infringersSettlement
References
47
Case No. 2011 NY Slip Op 30736(11)
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Stonehill & Taylor Architects

The defendants established they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition leading to the plaintiff's injuries, as work was completed and inspected two weeks prior to the accident without incident. The plaintiff's own testimony revealed he saw the molding only after falling, with no evidence of its duration on the floor. His vague account of other workers was insufficient to counter the defendants' prima facie case. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment was unanimously reversed, and judgment was entered in their favor, dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligenceActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewReversalMotions GrantedComplaint DismissedArchitectural Liability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 34 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