From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palacio v. Textron, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 2002
295 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-08880

Submitted May 2, 2002.

June 10, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered July 5, 2001, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Ryan, Perrone Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and William T. Ryan of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants.

Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey Pender, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff injured his hand on the blades of a lawnmower while working for the third-party defendant, Plandome Country Club, Inc. (hereinafter Plandome). He commenced this action against the manufacturer and seller of the lawnmower, Textron, Inc., and its subsidiary (hereinafter Textron), and Textron commenced this third-party action for contribution and common-law indemnification against Plandome.

Plandome moved to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that the plaintiff's injuries did not qualify as a "grave injury" within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (see Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577). Plandome met its burden of proving by competent admissible evidence that the injuries to the plaintiff's hand, while clearly serious, did not rise to the level of "grave" injuries within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (see Meis v. ELO Org., 97 N.Y.2d 714, 716; Castro v. United Container Mach. Group, 96 N.Y.2d 398). In opposition to the motion, Textron failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of fact. Accordingly, since the plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the third-party complaint (see Meis v. ELO Org., supra; Castro v. United Container Mach. Group, supra; Dunn v. Smithtown Bancorp, 286 A.D.2d 701, 702-703, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 610; Fitzpatrick v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 A.D.2d 487, 488).

SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Palacio v. Textron, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 2002
295 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Palacio v. Textron, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ELISEO PALACIO, plaintiff, v. TEXTRON, INC., ET AL., defendants…

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

Date published: Jun 10, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
743 N.Y.S.2d 178

Citing Cases

Ramos v. Powell

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

Blackburn v. Wysong and Miles Company

Among the grave injuries listed in the statute is the loss of multiple fingers or the loss of an index…