Lotysz v. Montgomery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lotysz v. Montgomery

309 A.D.2d 628, 766 N.Y.S.2d 28, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10807

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 628 (Lotysz v. Montgomery) 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

Lotysz v. Montgomery, 309 A.D.2d 628, 766 N.Y.S.2d 28, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered April 3, 2003, which, upon the prior grant of defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint in this medical malpractice action as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Greg Lotysz was injured while performing his duties as an employee of the New York Jets. He was treated for his injuries by defendant-respondent doctors, whom he now sues for medical malpractice. The record, however, establishes that defendant-respondent doctors were salaried Jets employees retained to provide medical services for fellow Jets employees, such as plaintiff, and fully compensated for those services by the Jets organization, and that plaintiff obtained treatment from defendant-respondent doctors solely by reason of his employment with the Jets, and not as a member of the general public. Accordingly, plaintiff’s action against defendants-respondents is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) (see Feliciano- Delgado v New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assn. of N.Y. City Health Ctr., 281 AD2d 312, 313 [2001]; Marange v Slivinski, 257 AD2d 427 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered April 3, 2003, which, upon the prior grant of defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint in this medical malpractice action as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Greg Lotysz was injured while performing his duties as an employee of the New York Jets. He was treated for his injuries by defendant-respondent doctors, whom he now sues for medical malpractice. The record, however, establishes that defendant-respondent doctors were salaried Jets employees retained to provide medical services for fellow Jets employees, such as plaintiff, and fully compensated for those services by the Jets organization, and that plaintiff obtained treatment from defendant-respondent doctors solely by reason of his employment with the Jets, and not as a member of the general public. Accordingly, plaintiff’s action against defendants-respondents is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) (see Feliciano- Delgado v New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assn. of N.Y. City Health Ctr., 281 AD2d 312, 313 [2001]; Marange v Slivinski, 257 AD2d 427 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 628, 766 N.Y.S.2d 28, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lotysz-v-montgomery-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack