Friello v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.

New York Supreme Court

Friello v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.

28 Misc. 2d 658, 214 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2972

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 3, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Misc. 2d 658 (Friello v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friello v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., 28 Misc. 2d 658, 214 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2972 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Walter B. Hart, J.

Motion by defendant, the Carborundum Company, for summary judgment upon the ground that the action is barred by section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. There are triable issues as to whether the notices given by the compensation carrier comply with the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 29, both with regard to their content and the manner in which they were served (Gorman v. Transocean Air Lines, 158 F. Supp. 339 ; cf. Teresta v. City of New York, 277 App. Div. 787, revd. on other grounds 304 N. Y. 440).

Another circumstance here present would seem to render summary judgment inappropriate. Thus, the compensation carrier is also the insurance carrier for the third-party movant. The possible conflict of interest inherent in this situation should be explored more fully at a trial. (See McCue v. Shea Co., 175 Misc. 557, per Froessel, J., affd. 260 App. Div. 946, overruled on other grounds in Christison v. Wallace, 265 App. Div. 937.) Although the statutory assignment under section 29 confers unlimited rights upon the assignee in respect to the disposition of the third-party claim, this is so only li in the absence of fraud” (Skakandy v. State of New York, 274 App. Div. 153, 156, affd. 298 N. Y. 886). Motion denied.

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

Walter B. Hart, J.

Motion by defendant, the Carborundum Company, for summary judgment upon the ground that the action is barred by section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. There are triable issues as to whether the notices given by the compensation carrier comply with the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 29, both with regard to their content and the manner in which they were served (Gorman v. Transocean Air Lines, 158 F. Supp. 339 ; cf. Teresta v. City of New York, 277 App. Div. 787, revd. on other grounds 304 N. Y. 440).

Another circumstance here present would seem to render summary judgment inappropriate. Thus, the compensation carrier is also the insurance carrier for the third-party movant. The possible conflict of interest inherent in this situation should be explored more fully at a trial. (See McCue v. Shea Co., 175 Misc. 557, per Froessel, J., affd. 260 App. Div. 946, overruled on other grounds in Christison v. Wallace, 265 App. Div. 937.) Although the statutory assignment under section 29 confers unlimited rights upon the assignee in respect to the disposition of the third-party claim, this is so only li in the absence of fraud” (Skakandy v. State of New York, 274 App. Div. 153, 156, affd. 298 N. Y. 886). Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 2d 658, 214 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friello-v-black-decker-manufacturing-co-nysupct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack