From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunn v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 2010
71 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-04426.

March 2, 2010.

In an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to a policy of insurance, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated February 27, 2009, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Peter C. Merani, New York, N.Y. (Mark J. Fenelon of counsel), for appellant.

Robert B. Taylor, New Rochelle, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Covello, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the motion following a prompt application by the plaintiff to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine his rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.

"[P]rimary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers' Compensation Board and . . . it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board" ( Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911; see O'Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219; Catapane v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 45 AD3d 517). In this case, the defendant's motion presented factual questions as to the plaintiffs "status as either an independent contractor, as he claims he is, or as an employee of a car service dispatch base, as the defendant claims ( Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262, 269). Resolution of these questions "is best suited for determination by the [Workers' Compensation] Board, given its expertise in the area" ( id. at 269). Accordingly, prior to rendering a determination on the motion, the Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for a hearing and determination as to whether the plaintiff is relegated to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law ( see Catapane v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 45 AD3d at 518-519; Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d at 269).


Summaries of

Dunn v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 2010
71 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Dunn v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH F. DUNN, Respondent, v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE Co., Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 2, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1757
894 N.Y.S.2d 895

Citing Cases

D.A.V. Chiropractic v. American Tr.

The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) has primary jurisdiction to determine factual issues concerning…

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v. Am. Transit Ins. Co.

its contention that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff's assignors had been acting as employees at…