Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJuly 12, 2019
Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51150(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion



Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as Assignee of Ubaldo Castillo, Respondent,

against

Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.


Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Jerome F. X. Hoffman of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered May 23, 2016. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that plaintiff's assignor had been injured during the course of his employment. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered May 23, 2016, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross motion.

Defendant proffered sufficient evidence to support its contention that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff's assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that, therefore, workers' compensation benefits might be available (see e.g. Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce v American Tr. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50531[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 [2009]). " 'Since primary [*2]jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers' Compensation Board,' it is 'inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board' " (Monteiro v Rasraj Foods & Catering, Inc., 79 AD3d 827, 829 [2010], quoting Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]). Consequently, the issue of whether plaintiff's assignor was acting as an employee at the time of the accident must be resolved by the Workers' Compensation Board (see O'Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 [1976]; Siekkeli v Mark Mariani, Inc., 119 AD3d 766 [2014]; Dunn v American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629, 629-630 [2010]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U]) and, indeed, the record indicates that an application to the Workers' Compensation Board has been made.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 12, 2019

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

Related

Siekkeli v. Mark Mariani, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Botwinick v. Ogden
453 N.E.2d 520 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Westchester Medical Center v. American Transit Insurance
60 A.D.3d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Dunn v. American Transit Insurance
71 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Monteiro v. Rasraj Foods & Catering, Inc.
79 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metro-psychological-servs-pc-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.