Devorin v. One Wall Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Devorin v. One Wall Street Corp.

210 A.D.2d 37, 620 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12368

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 37 (Devorin v. One Wall Street Corp.) 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

Devorin v. One Wall Street Corp., 210 A.D.2d 37, 620 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s second affirmative defense and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiffs moved to strike the affirmative defense of Workers’ Compensation, and defendant [38]*38cross-moved to dismiss the action as barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Since defendant, the owner of the building where plaintiff was employed and where the alleged injuries occurred, did not present evidence in admissible form sufficient to prove as a matter of law that it functioned as the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer, the IAS Court properly found that plaintiffs’ claims were not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 163). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s second affirmative defense and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiffs moved to strike the affirmative defense of Workers’ Compensation, and defendant [38]*38cross-moved to dismiss the action as barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Since defendant, the owner of the building where plaintiff was employed and where the alleged injuries occurred, did not present evidence in admissible form sufficient to prove as a matter of law that it functioned as the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer, the IAS Court properly found that plaintiffs’ claims were not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 163). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 37, 620 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devorin-v-one-wall-street-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack