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

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 445 (Castro v. Stallone) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 445, 721 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castro-v-stallone-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack