You are here: / / THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF...
, ,

THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could recover for assault and battery against a coemployee (Levoritz) even though plaintiff had been awarded Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employer for the same assault and battery. Plaintiff was employed by defendant law firm at the time of the alleged assault and battery and the law firm was owned by Levortiz:

The Supreme Court, however, erred in granting Levoritz’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Contrary to Levoritz’s contention, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 does not bar an employee who has accepted workers’ compensation benefits from suing a coemployee who has committed an intentional assault against him or her … . Additionally, Levoritz failed to establish, prima facie, that he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and was not engaged in a willful or intentional tort … .

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover damages for assault and battery insofar as asserted against Levoritz. The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover damages for assault and battery by showing, through the submission of his affidavit, that there was bodily contact, that the contact was offensive, that Levoritz intended to make the contact without the plaintiff’s consent, and that Levoritz placed the plaintiff in “imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . In opposition, Levoritz failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Tarasiuk v Levoritz, 2023 NY Slip Op 02698, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here the person who assaulted plaintiff was the owner of the law firm plaintiff worked for. Plaintiff could recover Workers’ Compensation benefits from the law firm and damages from the owner of the firm, who was plaintiff’s coemployee.

 

You might also like
THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS DAMAGES, CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT ALONE.
No Manifest Necessity for Declaring a Mistrial Over Defendant’s Objection–Double Jeopardy Barred Retrial
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION.
Guilty Plea Precluded Litigation on Liability
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S INJURIES, ANOTHER STUDENT, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY A DOG WHICH HAD BROKEN LOOSE, RAN INTO PLAINTIFF DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DISCOVERY OF PRIOR ASSAULTS IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PRIOR ASSAULTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENTS, ASSAULTS OF ANY KIND MAY HAVE PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE RESTAURANT’S INSURANCE POLICY COVERED INJURY INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF THE “PREMISES” AND THEREFORE DID NOT COVER INJURY CAUSED BY A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS DELIVERING FOOD BY BICYCLE; IF THE POLICY HAD USED THE WORD “BUSINESS” RATHER THAN “PREMISES,” THE OFF-PREMISES INJURY WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A CON EDISION TRANSFORMER MINI PAD WHICH ENCROACHED SIX INCHES ONTO PLAINTIFFS’... THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD...