Claudio v. Lefrak
| Decision Date | 02 April 1984 |
| Citation | 100 A.D.2d 837,473 N.Y.S.2d 833 |
| Parties | Joseph CLAUDIO, et al., Respondents, v. Samuel J. LEFRAK, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kroll, Pomerantz & Cameron, New York City (Roy E. Pomerantz, New York City, of counsel; Alvin Bluthman and Kenneth S. Fiorella, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Bases, Lawrence, Ciovacco & Walsh, P.C., Garden City (John R. Urban, Garden City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before TITONE, J.P., and O'CONNOR, BROWN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 11, 1983, as denied the motion of defendant Birch Leasing Co. for an order vacating its default in opposing plaintiffs' motion to dismiss its affirmative defense of workers' compensation and denied the motion of all the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the action is barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, defendant Birch Leasing Co.'s motion to vacate its default and the defendants' motion for summary judgment granted, and complaint dismissed.
Plaintiff Joseph Claudio, the resident superintendent of premises located at 102-45 62nd Road in Forest Hills, was injured as the result of the collapse of the floor in the boiler room. He thereafter commenced this action against the defendants, the owners of the building, seeking damages for the personal injuries he sustained. His wife, plaintiff Reisa Claudio, seeks damages for loss of consortium.
In its answer, defendant Birch Leasing Co. asserted, inter alia, that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Plaintiffs sought to strike that affirmative defense as interposed by defendant Birch Leasing Co., contending that Joseph was employed by an organization known as S.P.D. Service Corporation. Attached to the motion papers were paycheck stubs to that effect and Joseph stated that he never had "been paid any monies" by any of the defendants.
Defense counsel requested that its investigator obtain the documentation necessary to establish that the defendants were the actual employers, but, due to inadvertance, failed to request an adjournment of the plaintiffs' motion, which was thereafter granted by default. In the interim, another motion by the defendants, seeking sanctions for the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with certain discovery demands, was made and was subsequently decided.
When defendant Birch Leasing Co. became aware of the entry of the order striking the affirmative defense and the inconsistencies between that order and the order on the motion seeking sanctions, it sought to vacate its default and it and the other defendants sought, among other things, summary judgment on the workers' compensation issue. Eventually, Special Term denied those motions and defendants have appealed. We reverse insofar as appealed from.
At the outset, we reject plaintiffs' procedural arguments. Birch's application to vacate its default did not have to be made to the Judge who issued the order since it was entered upon a default (CPLR 2221, subd. 1; Conklin v. Conklin, 90 A.D.2d 817, 818, 455 N.Y.S.2d 842). Secondly, an order denying summary judgment is immediately appealable to this court (CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [iv]; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 5701.18).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brebaugh v. Hales
...Lyle Cider & Vinegar Co., 243 N.Y. 257, 153 N.E. 67, 67-68, 47 A.L.R. 840 (1926)." Hays, 768 P.2d at 15. In Claudio v. Lefrak, 100 A.D.2d 837, 473 N.Y.S.2d 833, 834-35 (1984), the court held that the employee's compensation award through the employer partnership bars the maintenance of any ......
-
Rainey v. Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates
...an action against a partnership where the partnership is the plaintiff's employer (see, Cipriano v. FYM Assoc., supra; Claudio v. Lefrak, 100 A.D.2d 837, 473 N.Y.S.2d 833). Here, we find that Montrose, the general partner, was acting in furtherance of the partnership business in employing t......
-
Levensen v. Berkey Professional Processing, Inc.
...determine that a genuine triable issue of fact exists as to the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Claudio v. Lefrak, 100 A.D.2d 837, 473 N.Y.S.2d 833). However, the complaint should not have been dismissed against the defendant McCune, who was a third-party tortfeasor and......
-
Patron v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.
...that order was entered upon a default (CPLR 2221[a][1]; see, Juers v. Barry, 114 A.D.2d 1009, 495 N.Y.S.2d 447; Claudio v. Lefrak, 100 A.D.2d 837, 473 N.Y.S.2d 833). Turning to the merits, we find that Trial Term abused its discretion in vacating the order dated June 17, 1985. In support of......