Edgarian v. Boxart

3 Citing cases

  1. Oben v. Charmer Industries, Inc.

    37 A.D.3d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Charmer Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted. "While an intentional tort may give rise to a cause of action outside the ambit of the Workers' Compensation Law, the complaint must allege `an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to this particular employee'" ( McNally v Posterloid Corp., 15 AD3d 456, 457, quoting Mylroie v GAF Corp., 81 AD2d 994, 995, affd 55 NY2d 893). The plaintiffs allegations failed to establish the elements of an intentional tort so as to fall under this exception to the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 29 ( see McNally v Posterloid Corp., supra; Fucile v Grand Union Co., 270 AD2d 227, 228; Edgarian v Boxart, Inc., 237 AD2d 484). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the defendant Charmer Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

  2. McNally v. Posterloid Corporation

    15 A.D.3d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    "While an intentional tort may give rise to a cause of action outside the ambit of the Workers' Compensation Law, the complaint must allege `an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to this particular employee'" ( Fucile v. Grand Union Co., 270 AD2d 227, 228, quoting Mylroie v. GAF Corp., 81 AD2d 994, 995, affd 55 NY2d 893; see Nash v. Oberman, 117 AD2d 724, 725). The plaintiff's allegations failed to establish the elements of an intentional tort so as to fall under this exception to the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 29 ( see Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 29; Edgarian v. Boxart, Inc., 237 AD2d 484; Gagliardi v. Trapp, 221 AD2d 315, 316; Nash v. Oberman, supra). The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

  3. Fucile v. Grand Union Company, Inc.

    270 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 33 times

    While an intentional tort may give rise to a cause of action outside the ambit of the Workers' Compensation Law, the complaint must allege "an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to this particular employee" (Mylroie v. GAF Corp., 81 A.D.2d 994, 995, affd 55 N.Y.2d 893; see also, Gagliardi v. Trapp, supra). The plaintiff's allegations failed to establish the elements of an intentional tort so as to fall under this exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Edgarian v. Boxart, 237 A.D.2d 484; Gagliardi v. Trapp, supra). The plaintiff' s remaining contentions are without merit.