From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Truran v. Otis Elevator Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1988
143 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

October 31, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, an employee of American Can Company, was injured by a door manufactured by the Otis Elevator Company (hereinafter Otis) at the American Can Company offices in Greenwich, Connecticut, and thereafter commenced this suit against Otis. In a third-party action by Otis seeking contribution and indemnification, American Can Company sought dismissal of the third-party complaint filed against it on the ground that Connecticut law applied and that the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act bars third-party actions against employers (see, Conn Gen Stat § 31-284 [a]).

We conclude that the court's denial of summary judgment to American Can Company was proper because there exists a triable issue at least as to whether, under Connecticut law, Otis's claim is predicated upon the breach of some independent duty owed by American Can Company to Otis so as to overcome the exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy (see, Ranta v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 287 F. Supp. 111; Kyrtatas v Stop Shop, 205 Conn. 694, 535 A.2d 357). Furthermore, it appears from this record that American Can Company is in exclusive possession of essential facts which may be the subject of discovery and thus should not be removed from the action at this stage (see, CPLR 3212; Di Miceli v Olcott, 119 A.D.2d 539). Eiber, J.P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Truran v. Otis Elevator Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1988
143 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Truran v. Otis Elevator Company

Case Details

Full title:PRISCILLA TRURAN, Plaintiff, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Oct 31, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Kramer v. Bouchard Transp. Co. Inc.

Apparently, such a claim may exist under Connecticut law because "[t]he [Connecticut] Workmen's Compensation…