Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.

266 A.D.2d 113, 698 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 23, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 113 (Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.) 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
Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co., 266 A.D.2d 113, 698 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered October 19, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff worker against defendant product manufacturer to recover for work site injuries that required the complete amputation of plaintiffs right ring finger and partial amputation of his right pinky finger, denied the motion of third-party defendant, plaintiffs employer, for summary [114]*114judgment dismissing the manufacturer’s third-party complaint for lack of a “ ‘grave injury’ ” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

To read the phrase “loss of multiple fingers” to mean, as the employer urges, a total loss of multiple fingers would be to render superfluous the word “total” selectively used before the phrase “loss of use * * * of a[] * * * hand”. Had the Legislature intended that the “loss of multiple fingers” must be “total” in order to qualify as a grave injury, it would have used that word immediately before that phrase. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Castro v. United Container Machinery Group, Inc.
273 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 113, 698 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banegaz-v-fl-smithe-machine-co-nyappdiv-1999.