Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1984 |
| Citation | 102 A.D.2d 884,477 N.Y.S.2d 58 |
| Parties | Janet PECKHAM, as Executrix of the Estate of John S. Peckham, deceased, Respondent, v. PECKHAM MATERIALS CORP., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Costello & Shea, New York City (J. Donald Tierney and James Walker Smith, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City (Michael F. Baumeister, Donald I. Marlin and Steven R. Pounian, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and LAZER, MANGANO and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 17, 1983, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation from defendant's answer.
Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, with the direction to defer disposition of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation from defendant's answer until final resolution of a prompt application to determine the rights, if any, of plaintiff to benefits under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law.
Plaintiff's decedent, John S. Peckham, was killed while a passenger in a helicopter owned and operated by his employer, the defendant Peckham Materials Corporation. Prior to his death, decedent was President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the company. At the time of the crash, the helicopter was transporting the decedent from a golf outing and dinner. In this action, plaintiff claims that the accident was caused by the negligence of the helicopter pilot, a company employee.
The only issue on this appeal is whether Special Term properly struck the affirmative defense of workers' compensation from defendant's answer. If the decedent's death arose out of or in the course of his employment, workers' compensation would be the exclusive remedy (Workers' Compensation Law, §§ 11, 29). There should be a reversal.
of Appeals held that the Workmen's Compensation Board has been vested with primary jurisdiction concerning determinations as to the applicability of compensation benefits and that it is inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending the board's determination. "the availability of compensation hinges upon the resolution of questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law, the plaintiff may not choose the courts as the forum for the resolution of such questions" (O'Rourke v. Long, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc.
...of the availability of coverage (Botwinick v. Ogden, 59 N.Y.2d 909, 911, 466 N.Y.S.2d 291, 453 N.E.2d 520; Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp., 102 A.D.2d 884, 477 N.Y.S.2d 58), and a plaintiff has no choice but to litigate this issue before the Board (Cunningham v. State of New York, 60 N.Y......
-
W & G Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Bd.
...VII, rests jurisdiction solely in the WCB (O'Rourke v. Long, 41 N.Y.2d 219, 391 N.Y.S.2d 553, 359 N.E.2d 1347; Peckham v. Peckham Materials, 102 A.D.2d 884, 477 N.Y.S.2d 58; Botwinick v. Ogden, 59 N.Y.2d 909, 466 N.Y.S.2d 291, 453 N.E.2d 520; Liss v. Trans Auto System, 109 A.D.2d 430, 492 N......
-
Reliance Ins. Co. of New York v. Garsart Bldg. Corp.
...matter, and since the alleged employer Garsart has not raised the defense of workers' compensation herein (cf. Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp., 102 A.D.2d 884, 477 N.Y.S.2d 58), Special Term can now proceed with the resolution of the issues in this proceeding (see, Burlew v. American Mut......
-
Bradley v. St. Charles Hosp.
...of the motion is held in abeyance until the Workers' Compensation Board renders a final determination ( see, Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp., 102 A.D.2d 884, 477 N.Y.S.2d 58). We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the facts presented here do not warrant dismissal of t......