Opinion
2012-07-18
Jose ANDRADE, respondent, v. BROOKWOOD COMMUNITIES, INC., et al., appellants.
Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for appellants. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for appellants. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered August 17, 2011, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“The defense afforded to employers by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law may also extend to suits brought against an entity which is found to be the alter ego of the corporation which employs the plaintiff” ( Cappella v. Suresky at Hatfield Lane, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 522, 522–523, 864 N.Y.S.2d 316;see Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d 594, 594–595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67;Hageman v. B & G Bldg. Servs., LLC, 33 A.D.3d 860, 861, 823 N.Y.S.2d 211). Here, although the defendants submitted some evidence that several of the defendants and the plaintiff's employer were related entities, the evidence did not establish the defendants' entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d at 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67;Hageman v. B & G Bldg. Servs., LLC, 33 A.D.3d at 861, 823 N.Y.S.2d 211;Alvarez v. Jamnick Realty Corp., 260 A.D.2d 328, 329, 687 N.Y.S.2d 671;Donatin v. Sea Crest Trading Co., 181 A.D.2d 654, 655, 580 N.Y.S.2d 461). The defendants' submissions revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' relationships with the plaintiff's employer entitled them to rely upon the workers' compensation defense ( see Hageman v. B & G Bldg. Servs., LLC, 33 A.D.3d at 861–862, 823 N.Y.S.2d 211;Alvarez v. Jamnick Realty Corp., 260 A.D.2d at 329, 687 N.Y.S.2d 671;Donatin v. Sea Crest Trading Co., 181 A.D.2d at 655, 580 N.Y.S.2d 461).
Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.