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 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. CA 14-00281
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAYER, CHERYL D. v. CONRAD, MATTHEW J.

This wrongful death action arose from a construction site accident where the plaintiff's decedent, a Fisher Concrete, Inc. employee, was fatally injured when an unsecured embankment collapsed. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence, while defendants filed a third-party action seeking indemnification from Fisher Concrete, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing an issue of fact regarding the defendants' actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification, concluding that the defendants could not be held vicariously liable for the third party's negligence.

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityExcavation WorkErie CountyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02184 [237 AD3d 891]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

Cianciulli v. Urban Found./Engg., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning personal injuries sustained by Joseph Cianciulli, a project executive, at a construction site in Brooklyn. Cianciulli was allegedly struck by an excavator bucket while inspecting a disputed work area. The original Supreme Court order granted summary judgment dismissing various Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against several defendants and third-party contractual indemnification claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action against the Urban defendants, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against Bond GC, and the third-party contractual indemnification claims. The court found that triable issues of fact remained regarding the defendants' authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work and their potential negligence.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentExcavation WorkSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySafe Place to Work
References
25
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. 154970/19 | Appeal No. 5599 | Case No. 2024-06451
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Russell v. Lenox Hill Hosp.

Plaintiff James Russell, an employee of a delivery service, sustained injuries while unloading a blood irradiator machine at Lenox Hill Hospital, falling off a truck after the machine rolled towards him. The Supreme Court had denied Lenox Hill Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and common-law negligence, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, and denied Rad Source Technologies' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these decisions, dismissing both the complaint against Lenox Hill Hospital and the third-party complaint. The court ruled that plaintiff was not a covered worker under Labor Law § 240(1) as the electrical work was unrelated to his activity and completed before delivery. Furthermore, Lenox Hill Hospital did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, negating Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence liability. The third-party complaint was also dismissed, as Rad Source cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, and delivery work is not considered inherently dangerous.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesPremises LiabilityLoading Dock InjuryUnloading Equipment
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

Hernandez v. Opera Owners, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02530 [160 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2018

Perkins v. County of Tompkins

Christopher Perkins was involved in a motorcycle accident after borrowing a motorcycle from his sister, Josephine Hines. Kathleen Perkins, as his guardian, sued Robert Zimmer Sr., whose vehicle Perkins veered away from. Zimmer then filed a third-party action against Hines for negligent entrustment, arguing she should not have loaned Perkins the motorcycle. Hines moved for summary judgment, contending she showed due care and that an injured party cannot claim negligent entrustment against the entrustor, but the Supreme Court denied her motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding Hines' testimony raised a factual question about her knowledge of Perkins' competency to operate the motorcycle and affirming that a third-party claim for contribution or indemnification based on negligent entrustment is valid.

Negligent EntrustmentMotorcycle AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimCompetence of OperatorDriver's LicenseMaterial Question of FactAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02204 [215 AD3d 1236]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2023

Carpentieri v. 1438 S. Park Ave. Co., LLC

Plaintiff Michael Carpentieri sustained injuries from an electric shock while performing remodeling work at a grocery store. He brought actions for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against the property owner, 1438 South Park Avenue Co., LLC, and the lessee, Tops Markets, LLC. Defendants subsequently initiated a third-party action against plaintiff's employer, Industrial Power & Lighting Corp., seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's order partially granted and denied summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against defendants and the third-party defendant, finding that they failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim and the third-party contractual indemnification claim due to unresolved factual issues regarding proximate cause and the retroactive intent of the indemnification agreement.

Summary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsProximate CauseContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementDangerous Condition
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06248 [164 AD3d 1458]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Neve v. City of New York

Plaintiff Anthony Neve, a New York City Sanitation worker, was allegedly injured when the seat of a street sweeper he operated collapsed. He sued the City of New York for negligence. The City initiated third-party actions against Johnston Sweeper Company (manufacturer) and Seats, Inc. (seat manufacturer). Following the City's disposal of the sweeper, the plaintiff was granted an adverse inference charge for spoliation of evidence. Both the plaintiff and Johnston Sweeper Company moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, clarifying that the adverse inference charge did not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove all elements of his negligence claim, including the defect's existence and causation.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentadverse inferencenegligencepersonal injurythird-party actionproduct liabilityappellate reviewmunicipal liabilitysanitation worker
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,420 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