From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kligman v. Call Again Thrift Shop, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 1994
209 A.D.2d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 3, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Workers' Compensation is an exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law (see, e.g., Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co., 189 A.D.2d 497, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 748). Here, the record demonstrates plaintiff was a volunteer employee of defendant, a not-for-profit corporation, which had prior to her accident elected to bring its employees under the coverage of the Workers' Compensation Law (Workers' Compensation Law § 3 [Group 19]; see, Monteleone v. Center Stor. Warehouses, 68 N.Y.S.2d 369, 371-372). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, no material issue of fact exists concerning non-coverage. That plaintiff identified another entity, the charitable foundation, as an employer does not affect the determination (see, Bonacci v. Treffiletti Supermarkets, 205 A.D.2d 907, 908).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Kligman v. Call Again Thrift Shop, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 1994
209 A.D.2d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Kligman v. Call Again Thrift Shop, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SHIRLEY KLIGMAN, Appellant, v. CALL AGAIN THRIFT SHOP, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 3, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 288

Citing Cases

Chvetsova v. Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

Dismissal on documentary evidence is warranted only if the "evidence submitted conclusively establishes a…