Amelgo v. Berk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amelgo v. Berk

199 A.D.2d 448, 605 N.Y.S.2d 404

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 448 (Amelgo v. Berk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amelgo v. Berk, 199 A.D.2d 448, 605 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated December 3, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is the owner of the facility in which the plaintiff, a coemployee of the defendant, was injured. Under these circumstances, imposing liability upon the defendant pursuant to Labor Law § 241 would be contrary to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), which makes workers’ compensation "the exclusive remedy of an employee injured 'by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ’ ” (Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017, 1019, citing Williams v Hartshorn, 296 NY 49, 50-51). "Regardless of his status as owner of the premises where the injury occurred [Berk] remains a coemployee in his relations with [the injured] plaintiff in all matters arising from and connected with their employment” (Heritage v Van Patten, supra, at 1019). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated December 3, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant is the owner of the facility in which the plaintiff, a coemployee of the defendant, was injured. Under these circumstances, imposing liability upon the defendant pursuant to Labor Law § 241 would be contrary to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), which makes workers’ compensation "the exclusive remedy of an employee injured 'by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ’ ” (Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017, 1019, citing Williams v Hartshorn, 296 NY 49, 50-51). "Regardless of his status as owner of the premises where the injury occurred [Berk] remains a coemployee in his relations with [the injured] plaintiff in all matters arising from and connected with their employment” (Heritage v Van Patten, supra, at 1019). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 448, 605 N.Y.S.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amelgo-v-berk-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack