Dumervil v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
| Citation | 80 N.Y.S.3d 421,163 A.D.3d 628 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2017–04721,704843/16 |
| Parties | Cathy DUMERVIL, Respondent, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants, OTG JFK T5 Venture, LLC, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
163 A.D.3d 628
80 N.Y.S.3d 421
Cathy DUMERVIL, Respondent,
v.
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants, OTG JFK T5 Venture, LLC, et al., Appellants.
2017–04721
704843/16
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—March 13, 2018
July 11, 2018
Curtis, Vasile, Mehary & Dorry P.C., Merrick, N.Y. (Michael G. Mehary of counsel), for appellants.
William Pager, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants OTG JFK T5 Venture, LLC, and Loft Restaurant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Salvatore J. Modica, J.), entered March 27, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of the defendants OTG JFK T5 Venture, LLC, and Loft Restaurant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants OTG JFK T5 Venture, LLC, and Loft Restaurant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.
The plaintiff was employed by the appellants as a dishwasher at their restaurant at John F. Kennedy International Airport. In September 2015, the plaintiff allegedly was injured due to a defective condition on the premises. She applied for and was found eligible for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. She then commenced this action against, among others, the appellants. The appellants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff's sole remedy against them was her eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. In opposition, the plaintiff contended that the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers' compensation Law were inapplicable under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court denied the appellants' motion. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.
The Workers' Compensation Law expressly provides that an employee's eligibility to collect workers' compensation benefits is the employee's exclusive remedy against an employer for job-related injuries
(see Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6] ; Isabella v. Hallock, 22 N.Y.3d 788, 792–793, 987 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc.
...will be paid," but forgoes the possibility of "a more substantial recovery through a jury award." Dumervil v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 163 A.D.3d 628, 629, 80 N.Y.S.3d 421 (2d Dep't 2018). The employer is on the hook for "no-fault liability," but is protected from the "large damage verdi......
-
Harewood v. Holmes, 2016–10166
...appeal, and we reverse. A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have 80 N.Y.S.3d 421reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N......
-
Zielinski v. N.J. Transit Corp.
...Law §§ 11, 29[6] ; Weiner v. City of New York , 19 N.Y.3d 852, 854, 947 N.Y.S.2d 404, 970 N.E.2d 427 ; Dumervil v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 163 A.D.3d 628, 629, 80 N.Y.S.3d 421 ; Power v. Fraiser , 131 A.D.3d 461, 462, 15 N.Y.S.3d 382 ). Here, the transit defendants established their pri......
-
Abele Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Schaeffer
...evidence, as required by CPLR 3212(b), because it was made for the first time on appeal (see Dumervil v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 163 A.D.3d 628, 629, 80 N.Y.S.3d 421 [2018] ; Matter of Hoge [Select Fabricators, Inc.], 96 A.D.3d 1398, 1399, 946 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2012] ; Charest v. K Mart of N......