Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co.

21 A.D.3d 1329, 801 N.Y.S.2d 193

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1329 (Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods 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

Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co., 21 A.D.3d 1329, 801 N.Y.S.2d 193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered October 7, 2004. The order granted the motion of defendant Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc. to dismiss the amended complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc. (defendant), commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while cleaning a machine at work. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant seeking dismissal of the amended complaint against it based on the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Plaintiff contends that the “dual capacity doctrine” should be applied herein because defendant designed the machine for the exclusive use of its employees. We reject that contention (see generally Reich v Manhattan Boiler & Equip. Corp., 91 NY2d 772, 779-780 [1998]; Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 160 [1980], rearg denied 52 NY2d 829 [1980]; Kubiszyn v Terex Div. of Terex Corp., 212 AD2d 93, 96-97 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 711 [1995]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered October 7, 2004. The order granted the motion of defendant Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc. to dismiss the amended complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc. (defendant), commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while cleaning a machine at work. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant seeking dismissal of the amended complaint against it based on the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Plaintiff contends that the “dual capacity doctrine” should be applied herein because defendant designed the machine for the exclusive use of its employees. We reject that contention (see generally Reich v Manhattan Boiler & Equip. Corp., 91 NY2d 772, 779-780 [1998]; Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 160 [1980], rearg denied 52 NY2d 829 [1980]; Kubiszyn v Terex Div. of Terex Corp., 212 AD2d 93, 96-97 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 711 [1995]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1329, 801 N.Y.S.2d 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-nestle-prepared-foods-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack