Seebeck v. Finetta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seebeck v. Finetta

179 A.D.2d 805, 580 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 843

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The plaintiff Roseanne Seebeck and the defendant, coemployees, were both acting in the course of their mutual employment when the defendant’s automobile struck Roseanne (see, Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140; Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888, affd 8 NY2d 1152; Smithline v Ghessi, 25 AD2d 841; Pantolo v Lane, 185 Misc 221). Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendant since workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available to the injured plaintiff (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff Roseanne Seebeck and the defendant, coemployees, were both acting in the course of their mutual employment when the defendant’s automobile struck Roseanne (see, Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140; Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888, affd 8 NY2d 1152; Smithline v Ghessi, 25 AD2d 841; Pantolo v Lane, 185 Misc 221). Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendant since workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available to the injured plaintiff (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Seebeck v. Finetta, 179 A.D.2d 805, 580 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

179 A.D.2d 805 (Seebeck v. Finetta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related