Knach v. Weiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knach v. Weiss

176 A.D.2d 564

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 564 (Knach v. Weiss) 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

Knach v. Weiss, 176 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered June 9, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the cross-motions of defendants Samuel Weiss, Design Consortium, Ltd. and Plushbottom & Peabody, Ltd. to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based on the defense of Workers’ Compensation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant Design Consortium, Ltd. was injured in the scope of the employment while she was riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by co-employee Samuel Weiss and owned by defendant Plushbottom & Peabody. The exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) precludes plaintiff from proceeding against defendants Weiss and Design in this action. Furthermore, defendant Plushbottom & Peabody, Ltd. may not be held vicariously liable as the owner of the vehicle driven under the circumstances presented. (See, Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642, 645.) Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered June 9, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the cross-motions of defendants Samuel Weiss, Design Consortium, Ltd. and Plushbottom & Peabody, Ltd. to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based on the defense of Workers’ Compensation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant Design Consortium, Ltd. was injured in the scope of the employment while she was riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by co-employee Samuel Weiss and owned by defendant Plushbottom & Peabody. The exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) precludes plaintiff from proceeding against defendants Weiss and Design in this action. Furthermore, defendant Plushbottom & Peabody, Ltd. may not be held vicariously liable as the owner of the vehicle driven under the circumstances presented. (See, Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642, 645.) Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knach-v-weiss-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack