Davis v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. City of New York

35 A.D.3d 240, 824 N.Y.S.2d 709

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 240 (Davis v. City of New York) 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

Davis v. City of New York, 35 A.D.3d 240, 824 N.Y.S.2d 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 12, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs decedent, a member of the City Council, was fatally shot by an assailant in the Council chambers in 2003. In this action, she alleged inadequate security at City Hall.

As a municipal employee at the Council, the decedent was covered by workers’ compensation (Administrative Code of City of NY § 3-204.3; Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 [1] [Group 19]). Thus, plaintiff’s recovery was limited to the workers’ compensation award she has already received (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ. [See 10 Misc 3d 234 (2005).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 12, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs decedent, a member of the City Council, was fatally shot by an assailant in the Council chambers in 2003. In this action, she alleged inadequate security at City Hall.

As a municipal employee at the Council, the decedent was covered by workers’ compensation (Administrative Code of City of NY § 3-204.3; Workers’ Compensation Law § 3 [1] [Group 19]). Thus, plaintiff’s recovery was limited to the workers’ compensation award she has already received (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ. [See 10 Misc 3d 234 (2005).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 240, 824 N.Y.S.2d 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack