Atkinson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atkinson v. City of New York

270 A.D.2d 483, 705 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 483 (Atkinson v. City of New York) 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

Atkinson v. City of New York, 270 A.D.2d 483, 705 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the City of New York from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on the award made to the petitioner pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (42 USC § 300aa-l), the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated February 5, 1999, which granted the petition and prohibited the enforcement of such lien.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. (90 NY2d 703, 708) the Court of Appeals interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) and (4), stating, “[t]ogether, these terms indicate that the lien and offset tools [of the Workers’ Compensation Law] may be applied only against recoveries from the third-party tortfeasors who are responsible for the claimant’s injuries”. In this case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the award made under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program did not constitute a recovery against a third-party tortfeasor. Therefore, pursuant to the rule defined in Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. (supra), no Workers’ Compensation lien may be imposed. The case of Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. (26 NY2d 6), relied upon by the appellant, is distinguishable because there the award made pursuant to the Military Claims Act (10 USC [484]*484§ 2733) was a recovery against the tortfeasor which was responsible for- the claimant’s harm.

In light of this conclusion, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the City of New York from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on the award made to the petitioner pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (42 USC § 300aa-l), the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated February 5, 1999, which granted the petition and prohibited the enforcement of such lien.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. (90 NY2d 703, 708) the Court of Appeals interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) and (4), stating, “[t]ogether, these terms indicate that the lien and offset tools [of the Workers’ Compensation Law] may be applied only against recoveries from the third-party tortfeasors who are responsible for the claimant’s injuries”. In this case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the award made under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program did not constitute a recovery against a third-party tortfeasor. Therefore, pursuant to the rule defined in Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. (supra), no Workers’ Compensation lien may be imposed. The case of Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. (26 NY2d 6), relied upon by the appellant, is distinguishable because there the award made pursuant to the Military Claims Act (10 USC [484]*484§ 2733) was a recovery against the tortfeasor which was responsible for- the claimant’s harm.

In light of this conclusion, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 483, 705 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack