Davis v. Vantage Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Vantage Homes, Inc.

99 A.D.2d 919, 472 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17328

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 919 (Davis v. Vantage Homes, Inc.) 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. Vantage Homes, Inc., 99 A.D.2d 919, 472 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Torraca, J.), entered March 24,1983 in Ulster County, which denied defendant Telecom Equipment Corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint. This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on July 20,1982 during the course of his employment with Telecom Equipment Corporation. Telecom moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation (see Workers’ Compensation Law, § 29, subd 6). Special Term concluded that the pleadings created an issue of fact in regard to the exclusive remedy. Plaintiff has now informed the court that after reading the brief submitted by Telecom, it concedes that no issue of fact exists and, therefore, has consented to the relief demanded on the appeal. We are equally convinced and, consequently, the order of Special Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed. Order reversed, on the law, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Torraca, J.), entered March 24,1983 in Ulster County, which denied defendant Telecom Equipment Corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint. This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on July 20,1982 during the course of his employment with Telecom Equipment Corporation. Telecom moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation (see Workers’ Compensation Law, § 29, subd 6). Special Term concluded that the pleadings created an issue of fact in regard to the exclusive remedy. Plaintiff has now informed the court that after reading the brief submitted by Telecom, it concedes that no issue of fact exists and, therefore, has consented to the relief demanded on the appeal. We are equally convinced and, consequently, the order of Special Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed. Order reversed, on the law, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 919, 472 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-vantage-homes-inc-nyappdiv-1984.