From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 1993
198 A.D.2d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

In Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture, 198 AD2d 157 (1st Dept. 1992), the court granted a discretionary venue change reasoning that the only nexus to the initially chosen venue, had been severed.

Summary of this case from LA CARA MIA BAR LOUNGE v. GREAT LOCATIONS

Opinion

November 23, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.).


Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured during the course of his employment at a construction project on premises located at 450 Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. Plaintiff, an employee at SH, received his orders from another SH employee, who in turn reported to a Big Apple employee. It is not disputed that the subcontract for the construction project in issue was undertaken by Big Apple, which provided Workers' Compensation Insurance on plaintiff's behalf. Defendant Big Apple submitted evidence establishing that employees of Big Apple and SH worked at the site performing the same functions; that Big Apple provided the equipment used on the job; that an employee of Big Apple acted as field supervisor for the employees of both SH and Big Apple; that the Big Apple field supervisor exercised, together with plaintiff's immediate supervisor, joint authority over plaintiff; and that the corporations share joint offices in Bronx County, as well as the same supervisors, officers, directors and stockholders.

It is evident that SH functioned either as an alter ego of Big Apple, or as its joint venturer, so that in either event, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law apply (Pisicchio v Salem Transp. Co., 159 A.D.2d 701; Bradford v Air La Carte, 79 A.D.2d 553; Fallone v Misericordia Hosp., 23 A.D.2d 222, affd 17 N.Y.2d 648). As the only nexus to Bronx County has been severed, and as plaintiff makes no further argument in support of retaining venue in Bronx County in the event the action as to Big Apple is dismissed, we affirm the order transferring venue to Queens County.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 1993
198 A.D.2d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

In Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture, 198 AD2d 157 (1st Dept. 1992), the court granted a discretionary venue change reasoning that the only nexus to the initially chosen venue, had been severed.

Summary of this case from LA CARA MIA BAR LOUNGE v. GREAT LOCATIONS
Case details for

Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture

Case Details

Full title:GREZGORZ KUDELSKI, Appellant, v. 450 LEXINGTON VENTURE et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 483

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. 301 W. 111 Owners LLP

Included among the circumstances where Workers' Compensation Law § 11 may bar an action against an entity…

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

For instance, generally, the exclusivity rule of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 applies to insulate a person…