From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DiCamillo v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2002
293 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-11196

Argued March 11, 2002.

April 15, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J., at liability trial; Dunne, J., at damages trial), dated September 28, 2000, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $544,000.

Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Catherine V. Battle of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenberg Minc Falkoff Wolff, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Gary Silverstein of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the sole issue of apportionment of liability between the defendant and the plaintiff's co-employee, nonparty Richard Ribarik.

The plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment while on premises leased by the defendant, Nassau County. At trial, the jury found that the County was negligent and awarded damages to the plaintiff. On appeal, the County contends that the failure to allow the jury to consider the liability of Richard Ribarik, a nonparty co-employee of the plaintiff, who was involved in the accident at issue, nor to apportion liability to that nonparty, was reversible error. We agree.

The relevant statutory provisions, CPLR 1601 and 1602, were amended effective September 10, 1996, as part of the Omnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635). This action was commenced in 1995, before the effective date of the amendment. Since the amendment applies prospectively only (see Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 582; Brown v. State of New York, 268 A.D.2d 548), the pre-amendment provisions must be considered in resolving this issue.

Pursuant to CPLR 1601(1), in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, a defendant whose proportionate share of the fault is 50% or less is liable for a plaintiff's noneconomic loss only to the extent of such proportionate share. Generally, the relative culpability of each person causing or contributing to the total liability for noneconomic loss was taken into account, not merely the culpability of those persons who were made defendants in the action (see Brown v. State of New York, supra; Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1601:2, at 606). Before the amendment, the statute provided that the culpable conduct of a nonparty was excluded from consideration only if the plaintiff proved that, despite due diligence, he or she was unable to obtain personal jurisdiction in the action over the nonparty (see Brown v. State of New York, supra; Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1601:2, at 606). Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which bars an employee from suing an employer to recover damages for an injury sustained in the course of employment, and precludes the defense of a fellow employee's negligence, does not constitute an inability to obtain personal jurisdiction within the meaning of the former CPLR 1601 (see Brown v. State of New York, supra; Duffy v. County of Chautauqua, 225 A.D.2d 261, 266). Moreover, the exception contained in former CPLR 1602(4) is not applicable here, since it refers only to circumstances where the person protected by the Workers' Compensation Law was impleaded in the action (see CPLR former 1602[4]; Brown v. State of New York, supra; Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1601:4, at 608). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the sole issue of apportionment of liability between the defendant and the plaintiff's co-employee, nonparty Richard Ribarik.

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DiCamillo v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2002
293 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

DiCamillo v. County of Nassau

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD DiCAMILLO, JR., respondent, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 253

Citing Cases

Viviani v. City of Yonkers

Thus, the dismissal of the action as against Mascioli was proper. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the…

Mancuso v. Kaleida Health

In our view, Supreme Court improperly precluded defendant from introducing evidence of the negligence of…