Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Private One of New York, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Private One of New York, LLC

103 A.D.3d 561, 960 N.Y.S.2d 382

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 561 (Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Private One of New York, LLC) 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

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Private One of New York, LLC, 103 A.D.3d 561, 960 N.Y.S.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 1, 2011, which granted plaintiff Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund of New York’s motion for summary judgment in its action to recover $453,358.95 in workers’ compensation policy premiums due to the State Insurance Fund (SIF) with statutory interest from November 30, 2008, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that defendant owes workers’ compensation premiums to SIF for its employees that were leased from employee leasing companies. Under the rules set forth in the Workers’ Compensation Rating Manual, defendant could have ensured that its leased employees were covered by workers’ compensation policies by obtaining the coverage directly or by having the employee leasing company obtain a separate policy naming defendant as an additional insured. Since there is no evidence in the record of the latter, SIF [562]*562properly concluded that defendant was providing the workers’ compensation coverage itself and was responsible for paying the premiums.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32869(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 1, 2011, which granted plaintiff Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund of New York’s motion for summary judgment in its action to recover $453,358.95 in workers’ compensation policy premiums due to the State Insurance Fund (SIF) with statutory interest from November 30, 2008, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that defendant owes workers’ compensation premiums to SIF for its employees that were leased from employee leasing companies. Under the rules set forth in the Workers’ Compensation Rating Manual, defendant could have ensured that its leased employees were covered by workers’ compensation policies by obtaining the coverage directly or by having the employee leasing company obtain a separate policy naming defendant as an additional insured. Since there is no evidence in the record of the latter, SIF [562]*562properly concluded that defendant was providing the workers’ compensation coverage itself and was responsible for paying the premiums.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32869(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 561, 960 N.Y.S.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioners-of-state-insurance-fund-v-private-one-of-new-york-llc-nyappdiv-2013.