Maropakis v. Stillwell Materials Corp.

38 A.D.3d 623, 833 N.Y.S.2d 122
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 2007·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 16, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 11; Cronin v Perry, 244 AD2d 448, 449 [1997]). “ [Controversies regarding the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law rest within the primary jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, including issues as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship” (Santiago v Dedvukaj, 167 AD2d 529 [1990] [citation omitted]). The determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board is final and binding, and a plaintiff may not maintain an action against a defendant from whom he or she has accepted workers’ compensation benefits by arguing that he or she was actually employed by a different entity (id.; see also Decavallas v Pappantoniou, 300 AD2d 617, 619 [2002]; see generally Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 910 [1983]).

Here, the defendants, the plaintiff’s employer and a co-employee involved in the subject accident, submitted documents from the Workers’ Compensation Board, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was awarded workers’ compensation benefits under the policy of the defendant employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Thus, the plaintiff cannot maintain the instant action, and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff s cross motion for summary judgment. Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

Maropakis v. Stillwell Materials Corp., 38 A.D.3d 623, 833 N.Y.S.2d 122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

38 A.D.3d 623 (Maropakis v. Stillwell Materials Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Velazquez-Guadalupe v. Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc.
188 N.Y.S.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Bello v. City of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 8646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Paguay v. Cup of Tea, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 6926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 3854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Fajardo v. Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp.
2016 NY Slip Op 6678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Mateo v. 1875 Lexington, LLC
134 A.D.3d 1072 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Wilson v. A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc.
131 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matias v. City of New York
127 A.D.3d 1145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Baldwin v. City of New York
43 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)