Mayorga v. Reed-Prentice Packaging Machinery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayorga v. Reed-Prentice Packaging Machinery Co.

226 A.D.2d 687, 642 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604

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

DecidedApril 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 687 (Mayorga v. Reed-Prentice Packaging Machinery Co.) 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

Mayorga v. Reed-Prentice Packaging Machinery Co., 226 A.D.2d 687, 642 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Creative Bath Products appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 18, 1995, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s papers were insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs’ causes of action against it were precluded by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see generally, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558; Abuso v Mack Trucks, 174 AD2d 590, 590-591; Poppenberg v Reliable Maintenance Corp., 89 AD2d 791). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, 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 defendant Creative Bath Products appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 18, 1995, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s papers were insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs’ causes of action against it were precluded by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see generally, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558; Abuso v Mack Trucks, 174 AD2d 590, 590-591; Poppenberg v Reliable Maintenance Corp., 89 AD2d 791). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 687, 642 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayorga-v-reed-prentice-packaging-machinery-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack