Falzon v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falzon v. Brown

282 A.D.2d 498, 723 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3541

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 498 (Falzon v. Brown) 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

Falzon v. Brown, 282 A.D.2d 498, 723 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated July 14, 2000, as granted the defendant’s application made at the close of evidence for judgment as a matter of law and, in effect, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

[499]*499Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s application for judgment as a matter of law. The defendant, who owned the premises where the plaintiff was injured was also president of the corporation that employed the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Workers Compensation Law is the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy (see, Lovario v Vuotto, 266 AD2d 191, 192; Zimmerman v Optica Mfg. Corp., 268 AD2d 584; Vanerstrom v Strasser, 240 AD2d 563; Lawler v Donnelly, 237 AD2d 413). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated July 14, 2000, as granted the defendant’s application made at the close of evidence for judgment as a matter of law and, in effect, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

[499]*499Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s application for judgment as a matter of law. The defendant, who owned the premises where the plaintiff was injured was also president of the corporation that employed the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Workers Compensation Law is the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy (see, Lovario v Vuotto, 266 AD2d 191, 192; Zimmerman v Optica Mfg. Corp., 268 AD2d 584; Vanerstrom v Strasser, 240 AD2d 563; Lawler v Donnelly, 237 AD2d 413). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 498, 723 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falzon-v-brown-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack