Hyman v. Agtuca Realty Corp.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2010
• Citation: 913 N.Y.S.2d 579,79 A.D.3d 1100
• Parties: Giovanni HYMAN, appellant, v. AGTUCA REALTY CORPORATION, et al., defendants, Aimes Collision, Inc., doing business as Aimes Towing, Inc., et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

913 N.Y.S.2d 579

79 A.D.3d 1100

Giovanni HYMAN, appellant,

v.AGTUCA REALTY CORPORATION, et al., defendants, Aimes Collision, Inc., doing business as Aimes Towing, Inc., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 28, 2010.

Drummond & Crawford, P.C., Queens Village, N.Y. (Stephen L. Drummond of counsel), for appellant.

Litchfield Cavo, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Christopher A. McLaughlin of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, J.), dated February 14, 2010, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Aimes Collision, Inc., doing business as Aimes Towing, Inc., Aimes Towing & Collision,Inc., Long Island International Auto, Inc., doing business as Aimes Towing, Inc., and Aimes Towing & Collision, Inc., which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants on the ground that the action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, and granted that branch of those defendants' motion which was to impose sanctions on him to the extent of directing him to pay "costs and disbursements on this motion."

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the cigarette he was smoking ignited flammable material while he was working in a paint mixing room at the premises of his employer, Aimes Towing & Collision, Inc. (hereinafter Aimes Towing). The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, Aimes Towing and its corporate affiliates (hereinafter collectively Aimes). Thereafter, Aimes moved, inter alia, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted Aimes' motion, and we affirm.

The exclusive remedy available to an employee injured in the course of his employment is to file a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits ( see Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29[6]; Cronin v. Perry, 244 A.D.2d 448, 664 N.Y.S.2d 123; O'Rourke v. Long, 41 N.Y.2d 219, 221, 391 N.Y.S.2d 553, 359 N.E.2d 1347). Here, Aimes demonstrated, prima facie, that it had a valid Workers' Compensation policy in effect at the time of the accident, that the plaintiff was employed by it and was under its supervision and control at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiff made a claim for and was awarded...