From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Concepcion v. Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


As the president of the corporation that managed the apartment building where plaintiff fell and employed him as a porter, defendant owed plaintiff a duty of implementing the measures that would satisfy the duty that defendant owed plaintiff, as owner of the building, of providing a safe place to work. Defendant's duty toward plaintiff as a coemployee being indistinguishable from his duty toward him as a property owner, the action is barred by the exclusivity provision for coemployees in Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) ( Heritage v. Van Patten, 59 N.Y.2d 1017; compare, Cusano v. Staff, 191 A.D.2d 918 [defendant not immune from suit where his control over the accident site was only as the owner of the property, and not at all as the plaintiff's coemployee]).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Concepcion v. Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Concepcion v. Diamond

Case Details

Full title:JOSE CONCEPCION, Appellant, v. DAVID DIAMOND, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 135

Citing Cases

Medrano v. Pritchard Industries

Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for the alleged breach of Gottesman's duty to him is, accordingly, to seek…

Martin-Lopez v. Ramos

al 211 AD2d 744. 621 NYS2d 924 [2nd Dept 1995]). "Where a landowner is also the employer of an injured…