Tedeschi v. St. Finbar's Roman Catholic Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tedeschi v. St. Finbar's Roman Catholic Church

208 A.D.2d 712, 618 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9974

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 712 (Tedeschi v. St. Finbar's Roman Catholic Church) 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

Tedeschi v. St. Finbar's Roman Catholic Church, 208 A.D.2d 712, 618 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated February 8, 1993, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant submitted proof that it was in fact the plaintiff’s employer. We agree with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to submit competent proof in support of his argument that his employer was in fact a separate legal entity. The defendant was therefore entitled to summary judgment, since the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see also, Levensen v Berkey Professional Processing, 122 AD2d 867). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated February 8, 1993, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant submitted proof that it was in fact the plaintiff’s employer. We agree with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to submit competent proof in support of his argument that his employer was in fact a separate legal entity. The defendant was therefore entitled to summary judgment, since the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see also, Levensen v Berkey Professional Processing, 122 AD2d 867). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 712, 618 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tedeschi-v-st-finbars-roman-catholic-church-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack