Garcia v. Monadnock Constr., Inc.

── Garcia v. Monadnock Constr., Inc. ── Court: New York Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Garcia v Monadnock Constr., Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 03217 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Garcia v Monadnock Constr., Inc.</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03217</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Court of Appeals</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Waldy Quinones Garcia, Respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Monadnock Construction, Inc. et al., Appellants.</p> </div> <p>Decided on May 21, 2026</p> <p>No. 26</p> <div> <p>John V. Fabiani, for appellants.</p> <p>Travis K. Wong, for respondent. </p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>MEMORANDUM:</p> <p>The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.</p> <p>Plaintiff was injured in 2020 while working at a construction site. He filed a workers' compensation claim as well as a personal injury action alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. In 2021, the Workers' Compensation Board determined that plaintiff did not sustain causally related injuries. One year later, defendants in the personal injury action moved to amend their answer to assert an affirmative defense of collateral estoppel based on the Workers' Compensation Board's decision and for partial summary judgment.</p> <p>Plaintiff opposed that motion, arguing that a newly enacted law, the Justice For Injured Workers Act (JIWA) (L 2022, ch 835), prohibited the court from giving collateral estoppel effect to the workers' compensation decision. JIWA provides that a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board "shall not be given collateral estoppel effect in any other action or proceeding arising out of the same occurrence, other than the determination of the existence of an employer employee relationship" (Workers' Compensation Law § 11 [2]; <i>see also id.</i> § 118-a [similarly providing that "no finding or decision by the workers' compensation board, judge or other arbiter shall be given collateral estoppel effect in any other action or proceeding arising out of the same occurrence, other than the determination of the existence of an employer employee relationship"]).</p> <p>The legislature provided that JIWA would take effect "immediately" (L 2022, ch 835, § 4). It therefore took effect on the date that the Governor signed it into law: December 30, 2022. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion was filed in February 2023, and plaintiff argued that pursuant to JIWA, Supreme Court could not give collateral estoppel effect to the 2021 workers' compensation decision. In reply, defendants asserted that JIWA should not be applied "retroactively" to cases pending before the effective date of the legislation.</p> <p>In July 2023, Supreme Court granted defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed. Analyzing the various factors discussed in <i>Matter of Gleason [Michael Vee, Ltd.]</i> (96 NY2d 117, 122 [2001]), the Appellate Division concluded that JIWA should be applied retroactively (235 AD3d 96 [1st Dept 2025]). We now affirm, but for different reasons.</p> <p>At t