Murphy v. Town of Ramapo

• Decision Date: 14 December 2010
• Citation: Murphy v. Town of Ramapo, 912 N.Y.S.2d 683, 79 A.D.3d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
• Parties: Dennis MURPHY, Jr., et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, defendant-respondent, Ramapo Valley Ambulance Corp., Inc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

912 N.Y.S.2d 683

79 A.D.3d 832

Dennis MURPHY, Jr., et al., plaintiffs-respondents,

v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, defendant-respondent,Ramapo Valley Ambulance Corp., Inc., appellant.

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

Dec. 14, 2010.

Siler & Ingber, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jeffrey B. Siler of counsel), for appellant.

Nicoletti Gonson Spinner & Owen LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph J. Gulino, Marina A. Spinner, and Pauline E. Glaser of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ramapo Valley Ambulance Corp., Inc., appeals,as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated November 12, 2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Volunteer Ambulance Workers' Benefit Law § 19.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Dennis Murphy, Jr. (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), alleges that on October 24, 2007, when he was a 16-year-old member of the "youth corps" of the defendant Ramapo Valley Ambulance Corp., Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), he was injured on the defendant's premises when a pen thrown by a 19-year-old member of the defendant struck him in the eye. The plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. After joinder of issue, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Volunteer Ambulance Workers' Benefit Law § 19, which provides, in pertinent part, that " [t]he benefits provided by this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy of a volunteer ambulance worker, or his spouse, parents, dependents, next of kin, executor or administrator, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages, at common law or otherwise, for or on account of an injury to a volunteer ambulance worker in line of duty or death resulting from an injury to a volunteer ambulance worker in line of duty, as against ... the political subdivision or volunteer ambulance company liable for the payment of such benefits." The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion on the ground that the defendant failed to...