Roche v. T.G. Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roche v. T.G. Realty, Inc.

266 A.D.2d 367, 697 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 367 (Roche v. T.G. Realty, Inc.) 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

Roche v. T.G. Realty, Inc., 266 A.D.2d 367, 697 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 21, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs motion to strike its affirmative defense that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation Law benefits.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion to strike the affirmative defense is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defense based upon the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant is an alter ego of Gaffco, Inc., the plaintiffs employer, which bears on whether the defendant is entitled to raise the defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Alvarez v Jamnick Realty Corp., 260 AD2d 328; see also, Donatin v Sea Crest Trading Co., 181 AD2d 654; cf., Mattarelliano v Moish Gas Stas., 242 AD2d 685). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Joy, 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 appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 21, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs motion to strike its affirmative defense that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation Law benefits.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion to strike the affirmative defense is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defense based upon the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant is an alter ego of Gaffco, Inc., the plaintiffs employer, which bears on whether the defendant is entitled to raise the defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Alvarez v Jamnick Realty Corp., 260 AD2d 328; see also, Donatin v Sea Crest Trading Co., 181 AD2d 654; cf., Mattarelliano v Moish Gas Stas., 242 AD2d 685). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 367, 697 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roche-v-tg-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack