Klem v. Special Response Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2015 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01368,125 A.D.3d 1544,4 N.Y.S.3d 448 |
| Parties | Dorsie KLEM, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SPECIAL RESPONSE CORPORATION, Defendant. Zurich Insurance Company, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
125 A.D.3d 1544
4 N.Y.S.3d 448
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01368
Dorsie KLEM, Plaintiff–Respondent
v.
SPECIAL RESPONSE CORPORATION, Defendant.
Zurich Insurance Company, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb. 13, 2015.
White Fleischner & Fino, LLP, New York City (Jared T. Greisman of Counsel), for Appellant.
Law Office of Jacob P. Welch, Corning (Anna Czarples of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, and SCONIERS, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff injured her ankle in the course of her employment with Corning Hospital when she exited a van operated by defendant, Special Response Corporation (Special Response), which transported employees to and from a parking lot. As a
result of plaintiff's injuries, appellant Zurich Insurance Company (Zurich), the workers' compensation insurer for plaintiff's employer, paid wage and medical benefits to plaintiff in the amount of $114,028 and claimed a lien in that amount (see Workers' Compensation Law § 29[1] ). Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Special Response and ultimately sought the approval of Supreme Court for a $70,000 settlement offer in the action. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, plaintiff also sought an order directing that any lien imposed by Zurich against the proceeds of the settlement be declared null and void or, in the alternative, an order determining the amount of such lien (see id. ). The court determined, inter alia, that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien against the settlement proceeds. We note at the outset that, contrary to plaintiff's contention, Zurich has standing to pursue this appeal (see Alam v. Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 457, 458, 868 N.Y.S.2d 750 ; Castleberry v. Hudson Val. Asphalt Corp., 70 A.D.2d 228, 241–242, 420 N.Y.S.2d 911 ).
Turning to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronkese v. Tilcon N.Y., Inc.
...the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings concerning this issue (see Klem v. Special Response Corp., 125 A.D.3d 1544, 1546, 4 N.Y.S.3d 448 [2015] ; see also Mayerhofer v. Turner Constr. Co., 29 A.D.3d 320, 321, 816 N.Y.S.2d 409 [2006] ).Finally, as Supreme Court f......
-
Mitchell v. NRG Energy, Inc.
...defendants' contention that they cannot be held liable, in any event, for an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23–9.2(a) inasmuch as they 4 N.Y.S.3d 448had no notice of, and were not aware that, the condition at issue was dangerous. Defendants' knowledge that the condition was dangerous is not ......