CompFox AI Summary
Hoa Lam, a day laborer, and his wife sued Triple 8 Construction, Sky Realty, and 652 Lin’s Garden for personal injuries sustained while installing a ventilation system. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence after a saw blade came loose. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, as well as Sky Realty's motion for contractual indemnification against 652 Lin’s Garden. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Triable issues of fact remained regarding the plaintiff's employer, the scope of employment, each defendant's role in the renovation, and Sky Realty's freedom from negligence.
Hoa Lam v. Sky Realty, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Hoa Lam, a day laborer, and his wife sued Triple 8 Construction, Sky Realty, and 652 Lin’s Garden for personal injuries sustained while installing a ventilation system. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence after a saw blade came loose. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, as well as Sky Realty's motion for contractual indemnification against 652 Lin’s Garden. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Triable issues of fact remained regarding the plaintiff's employer, the scope of employment, each defendant's role in the renovation, and Sky Realty's freedom from negligence.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.