Ramos v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

51 A.D.2d 911, 381 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11576

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 911 (Ramos v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.) 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

Ramos v. Broadway Maintenance Corp., 51 A.D.2d 911, 381 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 3, 1975, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and said motion granted, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff claims he was injured while in the performance of his duties for defendant due to the latter’s alleged negligence and violation of the Labor Law. Defendant, at the time, was insured for its liability to its employees as required by the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Indeed, it appears that plaintiff applied for and is currently receiving workmen’s compensation benefits. Under such circumstances, no action at law may be maintained against defendant-employer. (Noreen v Vogel & Bros., 231 NY 317; Cifolo v General Elec. Co., 305 NY 209, cert den 346 US 874.) Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 3, 1975, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and said motion granted, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff claims he was injured while in the performance of his duties for defendant due to the latter’s alleged negligence and violation of the Labor Law. Defendant, at the time, was insured for its liability to its employees as required by the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Indeed, it appears that plaintiff applied for and is currently receiving workmen’s compensation benefits. Under such circumstances, no action at law may be maintained against defendant-employer. (Noreen v Vogel & Bros., 231 NY 317; Cifolo v General Elec. Co., 305 NY 209, cert den 346 US 874.) Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 911, 381 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-broadway-maintenance-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack