Castillo v. 711 Group, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | 74 SSM 42. |
| Citation | 10 N.Y.3d 735,882 N.E.2d 885,853 N.Y.S.2d 273 |
| Parties | Wilfredo Alexis CASTILLO, Respondent, v. 711 GROUP, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. 3-D Laboratory, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Third-party defendant 3-D Laboratory, Inc. moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party action against it, claiming the injuries plaintiff sustained to his left index finger did not qualify as a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the third-party defendant's motion, but searched the record and awarded plaintiff and defendant/third-party plaintiff 711 Group, Inc. partial summary judgment on the issue whether plaintiff suffered a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. We affirm.
Workers' Compensation Law § 11 expressly lists the "loss of an index finger" as a "grave injury." Consistent with the principle that "[w]ords in a statute are to be given their plain meaning without resort to forced or unnatural interpretations," this Court has held that "the word `finger' means the whole finger, not just its tip" (Castro v. United Container Mach. Group, 96 N.Y.2d 398, 401, 736 N.Y.S.2d 287, 761 N.E.2d 1014 [2001]).
Here, plaintiff demonstrated that he lost both interphalangeal joints of his left index finger, leaving a "painful amputation stump" that required two corrective surgeries to desensitize. Thus, plaintiff established that he suffered the "loss of an index finger" within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (cf. Mentesana v. Bernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 36 A.D.3d 769, 770, 828 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2d Dept.2007]; Blackburn v. Wysong & Miles Co., 11 A.D.3d 421, 422, 783 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2d Dept.2004]; McCoy v. Queens Hydraulic Co., 286 A.D.2d 425, 425, 729 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2d Dept.2001]).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal Waste Servs., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
...judgment through admissible evidence. C.P.L.R. § 3212 (b); Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; Smalls v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d at 735; JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 384. A. Procurement of the Policy, Payment of the Premiums, and Notice of the Cance......
-
Pelsinger v. Spirer
...opposition, plaintiffs fail to make even a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief on thisPage 7claim. Smalls v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d at 735; JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 384-85.IV. DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants counterclaimed against plaintiffs f......
-
Burns v. Marcellus Lanes, Inc.
...Dept 2011) - below the knee left leg amputation. Not applicable here. Castillo v. 711Group, Inc., 41 A.D.3d77 (2nd Dept 2007) affirmed 10 N.Y.3d 735 - loss of index finger. applicable here. Benedetto v. Carrera Realty Corp., 32 A.D.3d 874 (2nd Dept 2006) - total loss of a foot. Not applicab......
- Gonzales v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't