Lovario v. Vuotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovario v. Vuotto

266 A.D.2d 191, 697 N.Y.S.2d 685

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 191 (Lovario v. Vuotto) 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

Lovario v. Vuotto, 266 A.D.2d 191, 697 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc. the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated October 29, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Nicola Vuotto for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The plaintiff is an employee of Oceanside Steel and Supply, Inc., while Vuotto is both the president and 100% shareholder of that corporation. Vuotto was also the owner of the property upon which the plaintiff was performing work and was injured. However, a worker, such as the plaintiff, who is injured during the course of his employment, cannot maintain an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the owner of the premises where the accident occurred when the owner is also an officer of the corporation that employed the worker (see, Stephan v Stein, 226 AD2d 364). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, etc. the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated October 29, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Nicola Vuotto for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The plaintiff is an employee of Oceanside Steel and Supply, Inc., while Vuotto is both the president and 100% shareholder of that corporation. Vuotto was also the owner of the property upon which the plaintiff was performing work and was injured. However, a worker, such as the plaintiff, who is injured during the course of his employment, cannot maintain an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the owner of the premises where the accident occurred when the owner is also an officer of the corporation that employed the worker (see, Stephan v Stein, 226 AD2d 364). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 191, 697 N.Y.S.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovario-v-vuotto-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack