You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT...
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation Law precluded a lawsuit in negligence against the defendant, who was the president and a shareholder of plaintiff’s employer, Total Recall, and was the owner, in an individual capacity, of the building in which Total Recall is located. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot behind the building:

… [W]hen an employee, during the course of his or her employment, is injured due to the negligence of a coemployee, the employee’s right to compensation lies under the exclusive provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]…). Where the defendant is both the property owner and a corporate officer of the plaintiff’s employer, the defendant’s responsibility to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work may be merged, in which case, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole remedy for the plaintiff … . If, however, the “defendant’s duty of care toward [the] plaintiff was owed purely in [the] capacity as owner of the property at the accident site, and not at all as a coemployee,” Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) will not bar the plaintiff’s negligence action … .

The issue distills to whether the accident site was in an area that was exclusive to Total Recall and its employees such that defendant, as the property owner and an executive officer of Total Recall, had indistinguishable obligations to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition. Garelle v Geinitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08916, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/CORPORATION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)

You might also like
Elements of Prima Facie Tort Explained—Disinterested Malevolence Not Demonstrated
THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
No Standing to Challenge Governmental Action—No Injury-In-Fact and the Type of Potential Injury Alleged Does Not Fall Within the Zone of Interest Underlying the Statute
EXERTIONAL ABILITY OF LESS THAN SEDENTARY WORK DOES NOT EQUATE TO A FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY, PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILTIY FINDING AFFIRMED.
Jury’s Finding that the Defendant Was Negligent but that the Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—Motion to Set Aside the Verdict Should Have Been Granted—New Trial Ordered
DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
THE DECLARATORY RULING BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE WAS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED MEDICAL RELEASE AS OPPOSED TO A LIMITED RELEASE CONCERNING ONLY THOSE AREAS OF HIS BODY AT ISSUE IN THE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT... RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL...