Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp.

211 A.D.2d 445, 621 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 158

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 10, 1995·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered September 13, 1993, which granted the motion of Creative Bakers, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s complaint against her employer, Creative Bakers, Inc., was properly dismissed as plaintiff’s exclusive remedy lies under the Workers’ Compensation Law (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 23, 29 [6]; see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 159; Bardere v Zafir, 102 AD2d 422, 423, affd 63 NY2d 850). Plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) was also properly denied, as the issues which plaintiff sought to discover regarding the inter-relationship between defendant Patmast Acquiring Corp. and the moving defendant employer had no bearing upon the issue of whether plaintiff had a right to maintain a separate cause of action for personal injuries against the employer (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017). Concur—Kupferman, J. R, Ross, Rubin and Williams, 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 13, 1993, which granted the motion of Creative Bakers, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s complaint against her employer, Creative Bakers, Inc., was properly dismissed as plaintiff’s exclusive remedy lies under the Workers’ Compensation Law (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 23, 29 [6]; see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 159; Bardere v Zafir, 102 AD2d 422, 423, affd 63 NY2d 850). Plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) was also properly denied, as the issues which plaintiff sought to discover regarding the inter-relationship between defendant Patmast Acquiring Corp. and the moving defendant employer had no bearing upon the issue of whether plaintiff had a right to maintain a separate cause of action for personal injuries against the employer (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017). Concur—Kupferman, J. R, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp., 211 A.D.2d 445, 621 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

211 A.D.2d 445 (Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related