From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miroe v. Miroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 9, 2000

March 23, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated April 22, 1999, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the third-party defendant separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Frank V. Merlino, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Montfort, Healy, McGuire Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neumann, Jr., of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.

Elovich Adell, Long Beach, N.Y. (Mitchel Sommer, Richard A. Lilling, and A. Trudy Adell of counsel), for respondents.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion and cross motion are granted, and the complaint and the third-party complaint are dismissed.

One who has received workers' compensation benefits is barred from commencing an action against a fellow employee who was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the injury (see, Workers' Compensation Law § 29[6]; Maines v. Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., 50 N.Y.2d 535, 543 ). As the defendant was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident (see, Matter of Husted v. Seneca Steel Serv., 41 N.Y.2d 140 ), the plaintiffs' action is barred, and the third-party action for contribution and indemnification becomes academic. In any event, the third-party action should have been dismissed as the injured plaintiff did not suffer a "grave injury" (Workers' Compensation Law § 11 ).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Miroe v. Miroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Miroe v. Miroe

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD MIROE, et al., respondents, v. TED MIROE, defendant third-party…

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

Date published: Mar 23, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 62

Citing Cases

Ramos v. Powell

The burden then shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact on the "grave…

Fitzpatrick v. Chase Manhattan Bank

In opposition to the motion, the appellant Biordi, Inc. (hereinafter Biordi), failed to demonstrate the…