From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medrano v. Pritchard Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1982

October 24, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Gottesman, individually and d/b/a 1120 Avenue of the Americas Associates, for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

ROBERT B. TAYLOR, for plaintiffs-appellants.

PETER E. VAIRO, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Williams, P.J., Buckley, Sullivan, Lerner, JJ.


Inasmuch as defendant Gottesman was president of plaintiff's employer, he was under a duty to plaintiff, as plaintiff's co-employee, to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work. Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for the alleged breach of Gottesman's duty to him is, accordingly, to seek workers' compensation benefits; the instant action must be dismissed pursuant to Workers Compensation Law § 29(6). We note that any duty Gottesman was under to plaintiff by reason of his ownership of the premises upon which plaintiff was allegedly injured, is, for present purposes, indistinguishable from such duty as he bore plaintiff as his co-employee (see Concepcion v. Diamond, 224 A.D.2d 189; McFarlane v. Chera, 211 A.D.2d 764; Cipriano v. FYM Assocs., 117 A.D.2d 770).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Medrano v. Pritchard Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Medrano v. Pritchard Industries

Case Details

Full title:EDDY MEDRANO, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PRITCHARD…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

Ciapa v. Misso

usivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) ( see DeJesus v. Todaro, 48 A.D.3d 341,…

Labecki v. West Side Equities

Regardless of whether the super was employed by the owner or the managing agent, the undisputed fact remains…