Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Kingsway Auto Transport Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Kingsway Auto Transport Corp.

238 A.D.2d 127, 655 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 31, 1996, awarding plaintiff damages in the principal amount of $79,275.58, with interest, costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review a prior order which, in an action to recover unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums, granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment in the full amount demanded, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and, more particularly, plaintiff s Rate Manual to which defendant’s policy was subject, defendant, a common carrier licensed to transport vehicles, was a contractor liable for the payment of premiums for drivers employed by other carriers defendant had engaged to perform some of its own contracts (see, Matter of Anslow v Spring, 272 App Div 1091). Moreover, because defendant never disputed the amount of premiums sought by plaintiff, the motion court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment in the full amount demanded (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Yesmont & Assocs., 226 AD2d 147). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 31, 1996, awarding plaintiff damages in the principal amount of $79,275.58, with interest, costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review a prior order which, in an action to recover unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums, granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment in the full amount demanded, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and, more particularly, plaintiff s Rate Manual to which defendant’s policy was subject, defendant, a common carrier licensed to transport vehicles, was a contractor liable for the payment of premiums for drivers employed by other carriers defendant had engaged to perform some of its own contracts (see, Matter of Anslow v Spring, 272 App Div 1091). Moreover, because defendant never disputed the amount of premiums sought by plaintiff, the motion court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment in the full amount demanded (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Yesmont & Assocs., 226 AD2d 147). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Kingsway Auto Transport Corp., 238 A.D.2d 127, 655 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

238 A.D.2d 127 (Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Kingsway Auto Transport Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related