From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackman v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1982
91 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

December 6, 1982


In an action to recover damages for libel, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered November 5, 1981, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered December 10, 1981 pursuant to said order, which dismissed the complaint as against each of the defendants. Appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting the provision dismissing the complaint with respect to defendants Steven Fisher, Sherry Frank and Jean M. Murphy. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. So much of the order as granted summary judgment in favor of the aforesaid defendants is vacated, the motion is denied as to them and the action as against them is severed. On June 24, 1977, plaintiff and defendants Steven Fisher, Sherry Frank and Jean M. Murphy were coemployees of defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS). It is alleged that on that date Fisher, Frank and Murphy published a libellous memorandum, which caused CBS to reassign plaintiff to a less prestigious position. Plaintiff commenced the instant action, sounding in libel, and subsequently recovered workers' compensation benefits from CBS for "accidental injury" resulting from his reassignment. Thereafter, Special Term granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the ground that "plaintiff's election to receive Workmen's Compensation benefits precludes him from maintaining a common law action for an intentional tort against his employer and his fellow employees". Plaintiff's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred the prosecution of an action against his employer, CBS (see Workers' Compensation Law, § 11; Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., 50 N.Y.2d 535; Matter of Doca v Federal Stevedoring Co., 308 N.Y. 44; Mazarredo v Levine, 274 App. Div. 122). Thus, Special Term properly granted summary judgment in favor of CBS. With respect to plaintiff's coemployees, subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workers' Compensation Law provides: "The right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee * * * when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ." However, that provision does not bar actions against coemployees to recover damages for intentional torts (see Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., supra; Hirsch v Mastroianni, 80 A.D.2d 633; cf. Moakler v Blanco, 47 A.D.2d 614). In the instant case, plaintiff's coemployees are charged with intentional, willful conduct. Therefore, plaintiff's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits does not bar the instant action as against Steven Fisher, Sherry Frank and Jean M. Murphy. Summary judgment should therefore have been denied as to these defendants. Damiani, J.P., O'Connor, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jackman v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 1982
91 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Jackman v. Fisher

Case Details

Full title:JOHN JACKMAN, Appellant, v. STEVEN FISHER et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 6, 1982

Citations

91 A.D.2d 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Rueda v. Elmhurst Woodside, LLC

ncluded by settlement or judgment in the employee's favor” (Matter of Ocasio v. Kim, 307 A.D.2d at 663, 762…

Orzechowski v. Warner Co.

In fact, the allegations here are to the contrary, i.e., that the tort was committed in the course of their…