From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roll v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

In Roll v. Murphy (1991) 174 A.D.2d 1030 [572 N.Y.S.2d 193] the land owner was the sole stockholder, president and chief executive officer of the corporation that employed the injured worker.

Summary of this case from Miller v. King

Opinion

June 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment. An injured worker cannot maintain an action for personal injuries against the owner of premises where an accident occurred when, as here, defendant was the sole stockholder, president and chief executive officer of the corporation which employed plaintiff (see, Heritage v Van Patten, 59 N.Y.2d 1017; Caceras v Zorbas, 148 A.D.2d 339, affd 74 N.Y.2d 884; Callari v Pellitieri, 130 A.D.2d 935; St. Andrews v Lucarelli, 115 A.D.2d 155). Workers' Compensation is plaintiff's exclusive remedy (see, Workers' Compensation Law § 29). Regardless of his status as owner of the premises where the injury occurred, defendant Murphy remains a coemployee in his relations with plaintiff in all matters arising from and connected with their employment (Heritage v Van Patten, supra, at 1018-1019).


Summaries of

Roll v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

In Roll v. Murphy (1991) 174 A.D.2d 1030 [572 N.Y.S.2d 193] the land owner was the sole stockholder, president and chief executive officer of the corporation that employed the injured worker.

Summary of this case from Miller v. King
Case details for

Roll v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ROLL, Respondent, v. ROBERT MURPHY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 7, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
572 N.Y.S.2d 193

Citing Cases

Miller v. King

Conceding there is some authority from other jurisdictions to support Miller's position (see, e.g., Lyon v.…

Ozarowski v. Yaloz Realty Corp.

In addition, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants summary judgment. A worker injured during the…