Castro v. Stallone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castro v. Stallone

281 A.D.2d 445, 721 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2329

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated May 5, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that workers’ compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). The plaintiff, who was injured during the course of his employment, cannot maintain an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the owners of the premises where the accident occurred since the owners are also officers of the corporation that employed him (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017; Lovario v Vuotto, 266 AD2d 191; Stephan v Stein, 226 AD2d 364). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated May 5, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that workers’ compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). The plaintiff, who was injured during the course of his employment, cannot maintain an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the owners of the premises where the accident occurred since the owners are also officers of the corporation that employed him (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017; Lovario v Vuotto, 266 AD2d 191; Stephan v Stein, 226 AD2d 364). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Castro v. Stallone, 281 A.D.2d 445, 721 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 445 (Castro v. Stallone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related