Camporese v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

New York Court of Appeals

Camporese v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

403 N.E.2d 961, 49 N.Y.2d 814, 426 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2166

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 403 N.E.2d 961 (Camporese v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camporese v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 403 N.E.2d 961, 49 N.Y.2d 814, 426 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2166 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

This case is governed by the law of New Jersey. Under the decisional law of that State a third-party action for common-law indemnity or contribution does not lie against the employer of the injured workman where, as here, the injury sustained by the employee is covered by workers’ compensation insurance (Arcell v Ashland Chem. Co., 152 NJ Super 471; Farren v New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 31 NJ Super 356; cf. Schweizer v Elox Div. of Colt Inds., 70 NJ 280, 288; see 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 76.21, pp 14-295 to 14-298). There is no basis for concluding, as appellant urges, that the present case falls within some "special legal relationship” exception referred to in the Arcell case.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, FuChsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

This case is governed by the law of New Jersey. Under the decisional law of that State a third-party action for common-law indemnity or contribution does not lie against the employer of the injured workman where, as here, the injury sustained by the employee is covered by workers’ compensation insurance (Arcell v Ashland Chem. Co., 152 NJ Super 471; Farren v New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 31 NJ Super 356; cf. Schweizer v Elox Div. of Colt Inds., 70 NJ 280, 288; see 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 76.21, pp 14-295 to 14-298). There is no basis for concluding, as appellant urges, that the present case falls within some "special legal relationship” exception referred to in the Arcell case.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, FuChsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 N.E.2d 961, 49 N.Y.2d 814, 426 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camporese-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack