Walsh v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. Consolidated Edison Co.

223 A.D.2d 641, 637 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 450

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 641 (Walsh v. Consolidated Edison 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

Walsh v. Consolidated Edison Co., 223 A.D.2d 641, 637 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated December 12, 1994, which (1) denied its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs action on the ground that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law and (2) granted the plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss the defendant’s second affirmative defense, which asserted that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly refused to find that the defen[642]*642dant and the plaintiff’s employer were engaged in a joint venture (see generally, Natuzzi v Rabady, 177 AD2d 620; Yonofsky v Wernick, 362 F Supp 1005). Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly found that the defendant was not entitled to benefit from the immunity to suit conferred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated December 12, 1994, which (1) denied its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs action on the ground that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law and (2) granted the plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss the defendant’s second affirmative defense, which asserted that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly refused to find that the defen[642]*642dant and the plaintiff’s employer were engaged in a joint venture (see generally, Natuzzi v Rabady, 177 AD2d 620; Yonofsky v Wernick, 362 F Supp 1005). Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly found that the defendant was not entitled to benefit from the immunity to suit conferred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 641, 637 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack