From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Croche v. Wyckoff Park Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 31, 2000
274 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted May 24, 2000.

July 31, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated May 4, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Bassuk Bros., Inc., Arnold Bassuk, Irving Bassuk, and Bas Freebar Realty Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Bassuk Bros., Inc.

William Pagan Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Tania M. Pagan and Stacey Rinaldi Guzman of counsel), for appellants.

John J. Feeley, New York, N.Y. (Eugene Guarneri of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Diego Croche (hereinafter the plaintiff) was injured during the course of his employment as a superintendent of premises owned by the defendant Wyckoff Park Associates and managed by the defendant Bassuk Bros., Inc. The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Bassuk Bros., Inc., on the ground that recovery was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Bassuk Bros., Inc., made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff was its special employee (see, CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; see also, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Gjelaj v. Dwelling Mgrs., 251 A.D.2d 4; Levine v. Lee's Pontiac, 203 A.D.2d 259), and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the special employee status (see, CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra, at 562). Accordingly, since the plaintiff elected to accept Workers' Compensation benefits from his general employer, he is barred from maintaining an action at law against Bassuk Bros., Inc., his special employer (see, Gubitosi v. National Realty Co., 247 A.D.2d 512).


Summaries of

Croche v. Wyckoff Park Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 31, 2000
274 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Croche v. Wyckoff Park Associates

Case Details

Full title:DIEGO CROCHE, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. WYCKOFF PARK ASSOCIATES, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jul 31, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 490

Citing Cases

Santiago v. Tristate Realty LLC

The action against a special employer is barred, "regardless of the general employer's responsibility to pay…

Roberson v. Moveway Transfer

Here, the record reveals that plaintiff has recieved Workers Compensation through Geneva. "When an employee…