Opinion
Submitted September 26, 2001.
October 15, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants CSA Contracting Corp. and Ho Kim appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated April 20, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and § 29(6).
Robert P. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N Y [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellants.
Salzman, Ingber Winer (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, there are issues of fact, inter alia, as to the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant corporations, and the relationship between the defendant corporations. Because the resolution of these and other factual issues will determine whether the plaintiff is barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and § 29(6) from maintaining this action, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Alvarez v. Jamnick Realty Corp., 260 A.D.2d 328; Fontus v. D J School Bus, 249 A.D.2d 361; Mattarelliano v. Moish Gas Stas., 242 A.D.2d 685; Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, 220 A.D.2d 654).
The appellants' remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Singh v. Metropolitan Constr. Corp., 244 A.D.2d 328).
BRACKEN, P.J., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.