Opinion
February 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint by which the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for the employment-related injuries of the plaintiff George Tompkins. The plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that there was no coverage under the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs' allegation that the defendant's negligence caused George Tompkins' injuries by allowing him and other employees to be exposed to toxic and injurious chemicals in the course of their employment at the defendant's East Fishkill facility does not bring them within the limited exceptions to the general rule that the Workers' Compensation Law bars an employee from maintaining a common-law action to recover damages arising out of an employer's negligence ( see, Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400; Rainey v. Jefferson Vil. Condo No. 11 Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 544; Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp., 147 A.D.2d 433).
The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiffs' motion to serve a second amended complaint since the allegations in their proposed second amended complaint were palpably insufficient as a matter of law ( see, Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp., supra, see generally, Kaplansky v. Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667; Del Bourgo v. 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 A.D.2d 795).
Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.