Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

198 A.D.2d 268, 603 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10350

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 268 (Jones v. Utilities Painting 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

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp., 198 A.D.2d 268, 603 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress, the third-party defendant Consolidated Edison Co. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered March 13, 1992, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for future medical surveillance costs against it.

[269]*269Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. is denied.

We find that the cause of action in question is barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see, Cifolo v General Elec. Co., 305 NY 209, cert denied 346 US 874; Acevedo v Consolidated Edison Co., 189 AD2d 497; Thompson v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 86 AD2d 867). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Santucci, 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 future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress, the third-party defendant Consolidated Edison Co. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered March 13, 1992, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for future medical surveillance costs against it.

[269]*269Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. is denied.

We find that the cause of action in question is barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see, Cifolo v General Elec. Co., 305 NY 209, cert denied 346 US 874; Acevedo v Consolidated Edison Co., 189 AD2d 497; Thompson v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 86 AD2d 867). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 268, 603 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-utilities-painting-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack