Turner v. Gannett Suburban Newspaper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. Gannett Suburban Newspaper

260 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3582

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

DecidedApril 5, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 370 (Turner v. Gannett Suburban Newspaper) 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

Turner v. Gannett Suburban Newspaper, 260 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered May 27, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to strike the third affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation benefits.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff applied for, was granted, and accepted benefits for the injuries at issue pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law on her representation that she was an employee of the defendant and that her injuries arose in the course of her employment. Accordingly, she is precluded from claiming in this action that she was not an employee of the defendant, and this action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; Werner v State of New York, 53 NY2d 346; Monteverde v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 215 AD2d 240; French v Shaft, 154 AD2d 336; Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 148 AD2d 690). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, 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, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered May 27, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to strike the third affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation benefits.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff applied for, was granted, and accepted benefits for the injuries at issue pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law on her representation that she was an employee of the defendant and that her injuries arose in the course of her employment. Accordingly, she is precluded from claiming in this action that she was not an employee of the defendant, and this action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; Werner v State of New York, 53 NY2d 346; Monteverde v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 215 AD2d 240; French v Shaft, 154 AD2d 336; Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 148 AD2d 690). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-gannett-suburban-newspaper-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack