From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cortes v. Skanska U.S. Civil Ne., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 19, 2017
154 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

10-19-2017

Luis CORTES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SKANSKA USA CIVIL NORTHEAST, INC., Defendant–Respondent, Silverstein Properties, Inc., Defendant.

Sobo & Sobo, LLP, Middletown (Gregory M. Sobo of Counsel), for appellant. Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Robert R. Rigolosi of Counsel), for respondent.


Sobo & Sobo, LLP, Middletown (Gregory M. Sobo of Counsel), for appellant.

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Robert R. Rigolosi of Counsel), for respondent.

As it is undisputed that plaintiff's fall off a stair tower occurred during the scope of his employment with Phoenix Constructors, a joint venture, and that defendant Skanska is a member of the joint venture, plaintiff's exclusive remedy against Skanska is workers' compensation (see Burlew v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 63 N.Y.2d 412, 416, 482 N.Y.S.2d 720, 472 N.E.2d 682 [1984] ; Felder v. Old Falls Sanitation Co., 39 N.Y.2d 855, 386 N.Y.S.2d 214, 352 N.E.2d 131 [1976] ).

Plaintiff's reliance upon Samuel v. Fourth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 75 A.D.3d 594, 906 N.Y.S.2d 67 (2d Dept.2010) and Mournet v Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of Elec. Indus. , 303 A.D.2d 474, 756 N.Y.S.2d 433 (2d Dept 2003) is misplaced, since these cases turned on whether the defendant was an alter ego of the employer so as to be entitled to invoke the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. To the extent plaintiff argues that the exclusivity provisions do not apply here because Skanska purportedly owed him a duty independent of its capacity as a member of the joint venture, the Court of Appeals has rejected this argument as "fundamentally unsound" (see Billy v. Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 159, 432 N.Y.S.2d 879, 412 N.E.2d 934 [1980] ). "[A]n employer remains an employer in his relations with his employees as to all matters arising from and connected with their employment. He may not be treated as a dual legal personality, ‘a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’ " ( id. at 160, 432 N.Y.S.2d 879, 412 N.E.2d 934 ).

ACOSTA, P.J., FRIEDMAN, WEBBER, OING, and MOULTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cortes v. Skanska U.S. Civil Ne., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 19, 2017
154 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Cortes v. Skanska U.S. Civil Ne., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Luis CORTES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SKANSKA USA CIVIL NORTHEAST, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 19, 2017

Citations

154 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
61 N.Y.S.3d 890

Citing Cases

Moore v. URS Corp.

The parties do not dispute that Prismatic Development Corp. was plaintiff's employer and paid plaintiff…