From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bohorquez v. Rikud Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2001
280 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 31, 2001

February 26, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated May 4, 2000, as granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mann Just, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joshua Just and Peter P. Sweeney of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. Pressman, New York, N.Y. (Richard Nealon of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination on the defendant's cross motion after the final resolution of a prompt application to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured while on the defendant's property, an apartment building in Brooklyn. The defendant contends that the plaintiff was employed full-time as the building superintendent and that his injuries arose out of this employment. The plaintiff denies that he was regularly employed by the defendant when the accident took place, and further alleges that he was only visiting the building at that time. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment on the ground that Workers' Compensation is the plaintiff's exclusive remedy.

It is well settled that "primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers' Compensation Board and that it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board" (Botwinick v. Ogden, 59 N.Y.2d 909, 911; see, O'Rourke v. Long, 41 N.Y.2d 219; Manetta v. Town of Hempstead Day Care Ctr., 248 A.D.2d 517).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have referred the case to the Workers' Compensation Board for a factual hearing upon which the Board can determine whether the plaintiff has a valid claim for damages or is relegated to Workers' Compensation benefits (see, Hofrichter v. North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Syosset, 271 A.D.2d 649).


Summaries of

Bohorquez v. Rikud Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2001
280 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Bohorquez v. Rikud Realty, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HERIBERTO BOHORQUEZ, APPELLANT, v. RIKUD REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Feb 26, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 831

Citing Cases

Santigate v. Linsalata

fendant Half Hollow Hills Central School District. The relevant statutes (see e.g. Workers Compensation Law…

Kayen v. Shames Realty, LLC

Moreover, applicability of Workers' Compensation as the plaintiff's exclusive remedy depends upon the…