Opinion
2016–04025 Index No. 15770/12
04-25-2018
Ibia M. CLARKE, respondent, v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., etc., appellant.
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Harold L. Moroknek, Daniel W. Levin, and Steven Saal of counsel), for appellant. Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Harold L. Moroknek, Daniel W. Levin, and Steven Saal of counsel), for appellant.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Denise L. Sher, J.), entered March 25, 2016. The order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint is granted.
In November 2012, the plaintiff, who was then an employee of First Student Management, LLC (hereinafter FSM or the employer), allegedly was injured when she fell due to a defective condition at FSM's place of business. She commenced this action against the defendant, First Student, Inc., which owned the premises, seeking damages for negligence. After earlier motion practice and an appeal (see Clarke v. Laidlaw Tr., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 920, 5 N.Y.S.3d 138 ), discovery proceeded, and the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. The defendant contended that it and the plaintiff's employer were functionally the same entity with respect to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law (see Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6] ). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, and the defendant appeals.
Generally, employees injured in the course of their employment may recover against their employers only under the Workers' Compensation Law (see Workers' Compensation Law § 11 ; Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 156, 432 N.Y.S.2d 879, 412 N.E.2d 934 ). Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) expressly provides that "[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee" (see Isabella v. Hallock, 22 N.Y.3d 788, 792–793, 987 N.Y.S.2d 293, 10 N.E.3d 673 ; Reich v Manhattan Boiler & Equip. Corp., 91 N.Y.2d 772, 779, 676 N.Y.S.2d 110, 698 N.E.2d 939 ). The exclusive remedy provisions also bar employees from seeking damages from "alter egos" of their employers ( Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d 594, 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67 ; Hageman v. B & G Bldg. Servs., LLC, 33 A.D.3d 860, 861, 823 N.Y.S.2d 211 ). The alter ego rule applies when one of the entities in question controls the other or when the two entities operate as a single integrated entity (see Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d at 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67 ). A mere showing that the entities are related—by, for example, sharing officers or ownership—is insufficient (see Moses v. B & E Lorge Family Trust, 147 A.D.3d 1045, 1046–1047, 48 N.Y.S.3d 231 ).
Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer by submitting evidence that, among other things, in addition to owning the premises, it was the sole owner and manager of the limited liability company that was the plaintiff's employer, that the plaintiff's employer was formed to provide bus drivers for the defendant's pupil transportation business, and that the two entities shared the same Workers' Compensation insurance policy (see Cappella v. Suresky at Hatfield Lane, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 522, 523, 864 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; cf. Crespo v. Pucciarelli, 21 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 803 N.Y.S.2d 586 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Cappella v. Suresky at Hatfield Lane, LLC, 55 A.D.3d at 523, 864 N.Y.S.2d 316 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.