Seemangall v. Canada Dry Bottling Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seemangall v. Canada Dry Bottling Co.

205 A.D.2d 522, 614 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5989

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

DecidedJune 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 522 (Seemangall v. Canada Dry Bottling 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

Seemangall v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 205 A.D.2d 522, 614 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated June 17, 1992, which granted the motion of the defendant Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[523]*523We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs are foreclosed from bringing this action because the plaintiff Tillak Seemangall applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits (see, O’Connor v Midiria, 55 NY2d 538; Deutsch v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 89 AD2d 597). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated June 17, 1992, which granted the motion of the defendant Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[523]*523We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs are foreclosed from bringing this action because the plaintiff Tillak Seemangall applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits (see, O’Connor v Midiria, 55 NY2d 538; Deutsch v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 89 AD2d 597). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 522, 614 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seemangall-v-canada-dry-bottling-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack