Wesley v. Long Island Power Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wesley v. Long Island Power Authority

294 A.D.2d 355, 741 N.Y.S.2d 712, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4867

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 2002·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Long Island Power Authority and the Power Authority of the State of New York appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered May 18, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense that the action against them was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

[356] Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the appellants’ proposed amended answer is deemed served.

There is a substantial question in this case as to whether the plaintiff held the status of a special employee, and whether the action against one or both of the appellants is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Di Sisto v Messenger, 176 AD2d 249, 250; Carino v Kenmare Remodeling, 292 AD2d 555; see also Wesley v Long Is. Power Auth., 284 AD2d 391, 392-393). The plaintiffs contentions are without merit (see Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419). Santucci, J P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 defendants Long Island Power Authority and the Power Authority of the State of New York appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered May 18, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense that the action against them was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

[356] Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the appellants’ proposed amended answer is deemed served.

There is a substantial question in this case as to whether the plaintiff held the status of a special employee, and whether the action against one or both of the appellants is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Di Sisto v Messenger, 176 AD2d 249, 250; Carino v Kenmare Remodeling, 292 AD2d 555; see also Wesley v Long Is. Power Auth., 284 AD2d 391, 392-393). The plaintiffs contentions are without merit (see Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419). Santucci, J P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Wesley v. Long Island Power Authority, 294 A.D.2d 355, 741 N.Y.S.2d 712, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

294 A.D.2d 355 (Wesley v. Long Island Power Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related