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
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Staub v. William H. Lane, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor (third-party defendant), was injured while working on a building project and initiated an action against the general contractor (defendant) alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The general contractor subsequently filed a third-party action against the subcontractor, seeking contractual indemnification based on an unsigned written proposal that referenced AIA Contract A401. The Supreme Court partially granted the general contractor's cross-motion for conditional indemnification. The subcontractor appealed this order. The appellate court found that material questions of fact remained regarding whether the parties had genuinely agreed to be bound by the indemnification provisions of AIA Contract A401, particularly because no formal contract was signed and the AIA contract itself was not provided to the general contractor. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying the general contractor’s cross motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

IndemnificationSubcontractorGeneral ContractorLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentContractual AgreementAIA ContractMeeting of the MindsUnsigned Contract
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 permits a partially negligent general contractor to enforce an indemnification provision against its subcontractor for damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence. The plaintiff, Stephen J. Brooks, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., sustained injuries and sued the general contractor, Judlau Contracting, Inc. Judlau asserted a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Thunderbird, which was initially dismissed by lower courts on the grounds that Judlau's partial negligence precluded indemnification under the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute does permit such indemnification as long as the provision does not seek to indemnify the general contractor for its own negligence, but only for that portion attributable to the subcontractor. The court clarified that the phrase 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' limits the subcontractor's obligation to its own negligence, thereby enforcing the indemnification provision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceConstruction AccidentGeneral Obligations LawWorkers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationPartial NegligenceHold Harmless ClauseThird-Party Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2002

Masciotta v. Morse Diesel International, Inc.

Plaintiff James Masciotta, a carpenter employed by W. Property Resources, Inc. (Property), was injured in a construction accident involving a ladder. Morse Diesel International, Inc. (Morse), the project manager, moved for partial summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from Property. The Supreme Court denied Morse's motion, but the Appellate Court unanimously reversed this decision. The court found that the indemnification provision in the subcontract between Morse and Property was enforceable, as Masciotta's injuries arose from Property's work and the use of the ladder, and there was no evidence of Morse's active negligence. General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 did not bar enforcement because Morse was held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) without its own negligence.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentLabor LawLadder FallSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorActive NegligenceStrict LiabilityGeneral Obligations Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Picaso v. 345 East 73 Owners Corp.

Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed against defendants as they failed to demonstrate a lack of notice regarding a hazardous staircase condition. Evidence of regular inspections and plaintiff's prior observation of the defect creates triable issues of fact regarding constructive notice. Tower is not liable for common-law indemnification due to the absence of a "grave injury" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The contractual indemnification provision relied upon by defendants does not limit indemnification to damages caused by Tower's negligence, nor does it preclude indemnification for defendants' own negligence. Consequently, enforcement of this provision could be barred by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 if defendants' negligence is found, rendering the conditional grant of summary judgment on contractual indemnification premature.

NegligenceLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawIndemnificationSummary JudgmentHazardous ConditionStaircase AccidentConstructive NoticeGrave InjuryContractual Indemnification
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2002

Pena v. Chateau Woodmere Corp.

This case concerns a plaintiff injured in a scaffold fall while employed by Bernini Construction, a contractor for Chateau Woodmere. The central legal issue is the enforceability of a contractual indemnification provision in a standard AIA contract between Chateau Woodmere and Bernini Construction, under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Bernini argued the contract, signed after the accident, was not retroactive. However, the court found clear and unambiguous evidence that the contract intended to apply retroactively to a date preceding the accident. Furthermore, Bernini's provision of an insurance certificate to Chateau prior to commencing work supported the intent to enter into the AIA contract. Consequently, Workers' Compensation Law § 11 does not prohibit the enforcement of the indemnification provision.

Contractual indemnificationRetroactive contractWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-party liabilitySummary judgment motionAIA contractScaffold accidentInsurance procurementAppellate reviewIndemnity agreement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2005

Goncalves v. 515 Park Avenue Condominium

This case concerns an appeal from an order that granted summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification. The action stemmed from personal injuries sustained by a worker at a construction site. Second third-party plaintiff Hird Blaker, Inc. (subcontractor) sought indemnification from second third-party defendant Woodworks Construction Company, Inc. (sub-subcontractor and the worker's employer). The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the unsigned purchase order between Hird Blaker and Woodworks did not incorporate the indemnification provisions of a separate trade subcontract by reference. The court emphasized that incorporation clauses in subcontracts typically bind subcontractors only to provisions related to the scope, quality, character, and manner of work.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction LawSubcontractor AgreementIncorporation by ReferencePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York LawInsurance CoverageScope of Work
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2008

Ostuni v. Town of Inlet

An employee of Smith Construction, LLC (plaintiff) sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during construction and initiated a lawsuit against the unnamed defendant, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The defendant subsequently impleaded Smith Construction, LLC as a third-party defendant, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim, concluding that the indemnification clause might violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) if the defendant was found actively negligent. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding indemnification, holding that the clause was valid under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) as it only required indemnification to the extent of Smith's negligence and included limiting language "To the fullest extent permitted by law." The case was remitted for an apportionment hearing to determine the extent of indemnification owed to the defendant.

Contractual IndemnificationLabor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentGeneral Obligations LawActive NegligenceThird-Party ClaimApportionment HearingConstruction ContractIndemnification Clause
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,120 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