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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Meadowlakes Development Corp.

The dissenting judges argue against the majority's interpretation of CPLR Article 16, particularly regarding the limitation of liability for indemnification claims. They contend that a party found 50% or less at fault, such as third-party defendant Home Insulation and Supply, Inc., should have its indemnification liability limited to its proportionate share. The dissent asserts that the legislative intent of Article 16 was to protect low-fault defendants from disproportionate liability, a purpose contradicted by the majority's ruling that upholds joint and several liability for indemnitors irrespective of their fault percentage. The dissenting opinion highlights that applying joint and several liability in this case would unfairly hold Home, found only 10% at fault, liable for 100% of the loss. Consequently, the judges would modify the original order and judgment to limit Home's indemnification liability to 10% of the amount paid by Meadowlakes.

CPLR Article 16Joint and Several LiabilityIndemnificationProportionate LiabilityLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Third-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionCommon-Law Indemnification
References
15
Case No. ADJ 4359672 (VNO 0478019)
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

JORGE OROZCO vs. MARRIOTT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES/INTERSTATE HOTELS AND RESORTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, CENTURY PLAZA HOTEL

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an insolvent insurer's obligations under a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant settled a cumulative trauma injury claim, and the settlement agreement apportioned liability for remaining lien claims among insurers, including American Protection Company. After American Protection Company became insolvent, CIGA stepped in, but sought dismissal, arguing its liability was not joint and several and no "other insurance" existed. The Board affirmed the dismissal of CIGA, holding that the original joint and several nature of the insurers' liability, as established by case law and the settlement, means Zurich North America's remaining liability constitutes "other insurance" relieving CIGA.

CIGAAmerican Protection Insurance CompanyMarriott Downtown Los AngelesInterstate Hotels and ResortsZurich North AmericaCentury Plaza HotelBroadspireSedgwick Claims Management ServicesCompromise and Release Agreementcumulative trauma
References
4
Case No. 87 CV 0450
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 1990

In Re Joint Southern & Eastern Dist. Asbestos Lit.

Plaintiff Anna Gallin moved to set aside a jury verdict in an asbestos litigation case against defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. The motion followed a trial where the jury allocated percentages of liability among the remaining defendant and several settling co-defendants, including Eagle-Picher and Keene Corporation, for wrongful death and product liability claims. Plaintiff challenged these allocations, arguing a lack of sufficient evidence under New York law. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, presided over by Judge McLaughlin, reviewed the evidence and, applying a strict standard for disturbing jury verdicts, found enough support for the jury's findings regarding the liability percentages. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.

Asbestos LitigationJury VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictNew York General Obligations LawLiability AllocationSettling Co-defendantsWrongful Death ClaimProduct LiabilityComparative FaultEvidence Sufficiency
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ayers v. Hakes

Claimant, a horse groom for Gordon Hakes' business, Painted Post Car Mart, developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working at Larry Hakes' farm. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Utica Mutual Insurance Company's policy, covering automotive work, did not cover the claimant's farm-related injury. The Board also found Gordon Hakes and Larry Hakes jointly and severally liable as uninsured employers due to a dual employment relationship. This appeal affirmed the Board's findings on policy coverage and dual employment but reversed the imposition of joint and several liability, remitting the matter to determine if a joint venture existed and, if not, to apportion liability between the Hakeses.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeInsurance Policy CoverageEmployer LiabilityDual EmploymentJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsHorse Grooming InjuryPolicy Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 587-14
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. 21st Century Constr. Corp.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a collection action against former members of the ELITE Contractors Trust of New York (ELITE), a group self-insured trust. The WCB sought partial summary judgment on the issue of joint and several liability for the trust's deficit, default judgments against non-appearing defendants, and discontinuance against settling defendants. Defendants raised various arguments, including the trust's alleged invalid formation, claims of unconstitutional taking, expiration of the statute of limitations, and untimely deficit assessments. The court ultimately granted the WCB's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against most defendants, affirmed the contractual and statutory basis for joint and several liability, and granted default judgments against non-appearing parties. Most of the defendants' cross-motions seeking dismissal were denied, with one exception regarding a dissolved LLC for which discovery was deemed necessary.

Workers' Compensation TrustJoint and Several LiabilityDeficit AssessmentGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Summary JudgmentDefault JudgmentStatute of LimitationsUnconstitutional TakingTrust AdministrationEmployer Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1993

Gramigna v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

A bricklayer, referred to as 'Plaintiff,' was injured on a scaffold at a work site owned by defendant Keio Gijuku, where defendant Joint Venture was the general contractor. A plank on the scaffold broke, causing the plaintiff to become lodged against a wall. The IAS court granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §240(1). On appeal, Joint Venture argued there was no statutory violation because the plaintiff did not fall to the ground. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the incident involved an elevation-related risk. However, due to the plaintiff's pre-existing hip condition, the court modified the original order to grant Joint Venture's request for further discovery, while otherwise affirming the summary judgment on liability.

scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)elevation risksummary judgmentliabilitypre-existing conditionfurther discoveryconstruction accidenthip injuryappellate review
References
4
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
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Perez v. Masonry Servs., Inc.

This case, Perez v Masonry Services, Inc., concerns a lawsuit brought by Adrian Perez and others against Masonry Services, Inc. (MSI), Manuel J. Herrera, James Herrera, and Lettire Construction Corp. The plaintiffs alleged a breach of contract to pay prevailing wages, as mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act, for work on a federally financed construction project. The Supreme Court, New York County, found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them joint and several damages. The court also permitted Lettire Construction Corp. to assert alter ego and veil piercing claims against MSI, Manuel, and James. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the record supported the finding that Manuel and James abused the corporate form to avoid wage payments and that joint and several liability was properly imposed.

Prevailing WageDavis-Bacon ActBreach of ContractAlter EgoVeil PiercingJoint and Several LiabilityConstruction ProjectCorporate Form AbusePayroll RecordsDamages Award
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,608 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