Lapinski v. Gusmar Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lapinski v. Gusmar Realty Corp.

211 A.D.2d 762, 622 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 762 (Lapinski v. Gusmar Realty 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

Lapinski v. Gusmar Realty Corp., 211 A.D.2d 762, 622 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated May 19, 1993, which granted the defendant Pantelis Fakiris’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A worker injured during the course of the worker’s employment cannot maintain an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the owner of the premises upon which an accident occurred when, as here, the owner is also an officer of the corporation which employed the worker (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017; Clarke v Americana House, 186 AD2d 530; Druiett v Brenner, 193 AD2d 644). Accordingly, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Santucci and Joy, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated May 19, 1993, which granted the defendant Pantelis Fakiris’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A worker injured during the course of the worker’s employment cannot maintain an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the owner of the premises upon which an accident occurred when, as here, the owner is also an officer of the corporation which employed the worker (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 NY2d 1017; Clarke v Americana House, 186 AD2d 530; Druiett v Brenner, 193 AD2d 644). Accordingly, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 762, 622 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapinski-v-gusmar-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack