State Ins. Fund v. Parrilla
| Decision Date | 26 December 1961 |
| Parties | STATE INSURANCE FUND, Plaintiff, v. Miguel PARRILLA et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York City Municipal Court |
Charles G. Tierney, New York City (Arnold M. Herzog and Leonard M. Schnitzer, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Joseph R. Cannata pro se.
No appearance for Parrilla.
This motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is granted.
Plaintiff seeks judgment, against the attorney for an injured employee who recovered from a third party, on its lien for benefits paid pursuant to Workmen's Compensation Law, § 227.
Defendant admits receiving notice of plaintiff's lien and states that it was inadvertently overlooked when he distributed the recovery proceeds. He raises no issue of fact, but contends in a cross motion for summary judgment that the lien is not enforceable against an employee's attorney.
Neither briefs submitted, nor independent research by the Court, have produced authorities directly in point. This seems to be a case of first impression.
After a lien has attached, a liberal construction should be put upon the (lien) statute for the purpose of fulfilling its objects. (Friedman v. Stein, 4 N.J. 34, 71 A.2d 346; Sullens & Hoss, Inc. v. Farvour, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 535, 14 Alaska 492).
The Workmen's Compensation Law was framed to provide an injured employee with a substitute for wages lost during his disability. The intent of Sec. 227 was that benefits received thereunder be repaid upon a sufficient recovery from the third person who caused the disabling injury. To secure such repayment the legislature created a lien on the recovery. As soon as the recovery came into being, the lien attached and became enforceable. In addition to the lien being enforceable against the injured employee who received the proceeds of the recovery (Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Sims, 187 Misc. 815, 67 N.Y.S.2d 665), it is enforceable against his attorney who with notice of the lien disbursed the proceeds of the recovery.
The same conclusion appears to be implicit in Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Stevens, 25 Misc.2d 799, 206 N.Y.S.2d 615, where the Court finding no waiver of the lien created by Sec. 29 granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against the injured employee and his attorney.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comm'rs of the State Ins. Fund v. Augusto Garcia, Scalzi & Nofi PLLC
...the State Insurance Fund v. McCarthy, 36 Misc.2d 956, 234 N.Y.S.2d 333 [Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co.1962] ; and State Insurance Fund v. Parrilla, 31 Misc.2d 835, 225 N.Y.S.2d 236 [Mun.Ct., N.Y.Co., 1961].Defense counsel acknowledges this case law but points out that the decisions invoked by Plaintiffs ......
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis.
...638), in the same way that the attorney for the third party claimant is a proper, but not a necessary, party. (State Insurance Fund v. Parrilla, 31 Misc.2d 835, 225 N.Y.S.2d 236). Therefore, the present parties in this action could have joined the injured employee and his attorney as party ......
-
Aiello v. Levine
...867).' A similar result followed where the attorney had notice of a Workmen's Compensation lien. See State Insurance Fund v. Parrilla, 31 Misc.2d 835, 836, 225 N.Y.S.2d 236, 237: 'In addition to the lien being enforceable against the injured employee who received the proceeds of the recover......
-
Neilson Realty Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
...are intended to be repaid out of any recovery he may obtain from the third person who caused the disabling injury. (State Insurance Fund v. Parrilla, 31 Misc.2d 835 .) To secure such repayment the legislature created an unequivocal lien upon the recovery as soon as it comes into being, subo......