Weiner v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 31 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 96,96
• Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 04207
• Parties: Mark Weiner, Appellant, v. City of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

2012 NY Slip Op 04207

Mark Weiner, Appellant,
v.
City of New York, et al., Respondents.

No. 96

Court of Appeals of New York

Decided May 31, 2012

Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, for appellant.

Julie Steiner, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

Page 2

Plaintiff Mark Weiner, who was employed by the New York City Fire Department as an emergency medical technician, was hurt while responding to a report of an injured person on a boardwalk in Brighton Beach. He applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from his employer - the City of New York. Subsequently, Weiner commenced this action against the City and its Parks and Recreation Department, alleging both common law negligence and a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-a. According to Weiner, the boardwalk was poorly illuminated, causing his fall.

The City moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, arguing that Weiner's receipt of workers' compensation benefits barred his lawsuit, that as an emergency medical technician he was not within the class of persons who may bring an action under § 205-a, and that he could not proceed against the City as "owner" of the boardwalk. Supreme Court denied the motion, citing Lo Tempio v City of Buffalo (6 AD3d 1197 [4th Dept 2004]).

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, agreeing with the City that Weiner's action was barred by his receipt of workers' compensation benefits, and that he could not sue the City in its landlord role. The Appellate Division granted Weiner leave to appeal to this Court and certified the question whether its opinion and order was properly made.

Workers' compensation benefits are "[t]he sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against his employer for injuries in the course of employment" (Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1, 8 [1993]). This precludes suits against an employer for injuries in the course of employment. "In exchange for the security of knowing that fixed benefits will be paid without the need to resort to expensive and sometimes risky litigation, . . . the...