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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 23, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

266 A.D.2d 113 (Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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