Di Rie v. Automotive Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Rie v. Automotive Realty Corp.

199 A.D.2d 98, 605 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11946

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 98 (Di Rie v. Automotive Realty 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

Di Rie v. Automotive Realty Corp., 199 A.D.2d 98, 605 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.) entered September 16, 1992, which granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, Workers’ Compensation, which plaintiff has recovered from third-party defendant, is plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy. Both defendant and third-party defendant are owned by one individual. Though defendant and third-party defendant are separate legal entities, that is not a basis for not limiting plaintiff to Workers’ Compensation. Defendant, which has no employees, is controlled by the individual that controls plaintiff’s employer (Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017). Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.) entered September 16, 1992, which granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, Workers’ Compensation, which plaintiff has recovered from third-party defendant, is plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy. Both defendant and third-party defendant are owned by one individual. Though defendant and third-party defendant are separate legal entities, that is not a basis for not limiting plaintiff to Workers’ Compensation. Defendant, which has no employees, is controlled by the individual that controls plaintiff’s employer (Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017). Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 98, 605 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-rie-v-automotive-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack