A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that allows a personal injury lawsuit against MLJ Contracting Corp. to continue. The case, Fehringer v. MLJ Contracting Corp., centers around an alleged workplace injury involving the plaintiff, Peter Fehringer, who claims he was hurt due to the contractor's negligence. This decision is significant as it affects how agreements not to sue are interpreted in personal injury cases.
The court's ruling, issued on June 17, 2026, confirms that the plaintiff's claims are not barred by a previous agreement he signed. This agreement was made between Fehringer and his employer, Garden State Engineering, Surveying & Planning of New York, Inc., and included a clause stating that he would not sue MLJ Contracting Corp. in exchange for compensation. The case highlights the complexities of legal agreements in the context of workplace injuries.
In April 2022, Fehringer filed a lawsuit against MLJ Contracting Corp., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). He claimed he sustained injuries after tripping over construction debris on the contractor's worksite. In response, MLJ Contracting Corp. sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the prior agreement released them from liability. The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Kings County, where the motion to dismiss was denied.
The appellate court, which includes Justices Mark C. Dillon, Lara J. Genovesi, Donna-Marie E. Golia, and Phillip Hom, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the agreement did not clearly and unequivocally release MLJ Contracting Corp. from the consequences of its own alleged negligence. The court stated, "nothing therein clearly and unequivocally evinced an intent to release the defendant from the consequences of its own alleged negligence." This determination allowed the complaint to move forward.
The court also addressed the argument that the documentary evidence provided by MLJ Contracting Corp. should have led to a dismissal of the case. The court clarified that to succeed on such a motion, the evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations. The court noted that the documents submitted, including the agreement and payroll records, did not meet this standard. Thus, the court upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence.
This ruling has important implications for personal injury cases in New York. It emphasizes that agreements not to sue must be clearly defined to be enforceable in dismissing claims. This case could influence future disputes over similar agreements, particularly in construction and workplace injury contexts.
Going forward, this decision allows Fehringer's lawsuit to proceed, which may lead to a trial where the facts of the case will be presented in full. The ruling underscores the importance of clarity in legal agreements and the rights of injured parties to seek compensation for their injuries.
As for next steps, MLJ Contracting Corp. may consider appealing the decision to a higher court. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning the interpretation of release agreements in personal injury claims.