Opinion
2014-09-17
Andrew McDONALD, appellant, v. WINTER BROS. TRANSFER STATION CORP., respondent.
Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Guy J. Levasseur and Kathleen M. Conroy of counsel), for respondent.
Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Guy J. Levasseur and Kathleen M. Conroy of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated December 6, 2012, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“The protection against lawsuits by injured workers that is afforded to employers by Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) also extends to entities that are alter egos of the entity which employs the plaintiff” (Quizhpe v. Luvin Constr. Corp., 103 A.D.3d 618, 618–619, 960 N.Y.S.2d 130; see Batts v. IBEX Constr., LLC, 112 A.D.3d 765, 766, 977 N.Y.S.2d 282; Andrade v. Brookwood Communities, Inc., 97 A.D.3d 711, 711, 947 N.Y.S.2d 912). “A defendant may establish itself as the alter ego of a plaintiff's employer by demonstrating that one of the entities controls the other or that the two operate as a single integrated entity” (Quizhpe v. Luvin Constr. Corp., 103 A.D.3d at 619, 960 N.Y.S.2d 130; see Batts v. IBEX Constr., LLC, 112 A.D.3d at 766, 977 N.Y.S.2d 282; Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d 594, 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67).
Here, the defendant established, prima facie, a defense under the Workers' Compensation Law by demonstrating that it and the plaintiff's employer, the nonparty Winter Bros. Waste Systems, Inc., operate as a single integrated entity ( see Quizhpe v. Luvin Constr. Corp., 103 A.D.3d at 619, 960 N.Y.S.2d 130; Coonjbeharry v. Altone Elec., LLC, 94 A.D.3d 1306, 1307–1308, 942 N.Y.S.2d 681; Morato–Rodriguez v. Riva Constr. Group, 88 A.D.3d 549, 549, 931 N.Y.S.2d 282; Anduaga v. AHRC NYC New Projects, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 925, 925, 869 N.Y.S.2d 801). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Quizhpe v. Luvin Constr. Corp., 103 A.D.3d at 619, 960 N.Y.S.2d 130). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.