Szumowski v. PV Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szumowski v. PV Holding Corp.

90 A.D.3d 415, 933 N.Y.2d 552

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 415 (Szumowski v. PV Holding 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

Szumowski v. PV Holding Corp., 90 A.D.3d 415, 933 N.Y.2d 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs seek to impose vicarious liability on defendant PV Holding Corp. for injuries plaintiff Zygmunt Szumowski allegedly sustained during the course of his employment at Avis when an employee of Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. negligently operated a motor vehicle. Title to that vehicle was held by defendant. However, no liability may be imputed to defendant, because plaintiffs’ “exclusive remedy” is workers’ compensation (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; see Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642, 645 [1983]; Naso v Lafata, 4 NY2d 585, 590 [1958]). Given that plaintiffs did not assert any allegation that defendant had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence, the motion court should have dismissed the complaint (see Chiriboga v Ebrahimoff, 281 AD2d 353, 354 [2001]). We find plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs seek to impose vicarious liability on defendant PV Holding Corp. for injuries plaintiff Zygmunt Szumowski allegedly sustained during the course of his employment at Avis when an employee of Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. negligently operated a motor vehicle. Title to that vehicle was held by defendant. However, no liability may be imputed to defendant, because plaintiffs’ “exclusive remedy” is workers’ compensation (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; see Kenny v Bacolo, 61 NY2d 642, 645 [1983]; Naso v Lafata, 4 NY2d 585, 590 [1958]). Given that plaintiffs did not assert any allegation that defendant had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence, the motion court should have dismissed the complaint (see Chiriboga v Ebrahimoff, 281 AD2d 353, 354 [2001]). We find plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 415, 933 N.Y.2d 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szumowski-v-pv-holding-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack