From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hussein v. Pacific Handy Cutter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 2000
272 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 26, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 5, 199 9, which, in a products liability action by a worker against a manufacturer, granted third-party defendant employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the manufacturer's third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Anthony J. McNulty, for plaintiff-appellant.

Steven B. Prystowsky, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias, Saxe, JJ.


The third-party action was properly dismissed upon a record establishing that plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 Work. Comp.. He is currently employed and licensed to operate a motor vehicle. The injury to plaintiff's left eye resulted in corrected visual acuity of 20/40 in that eye. Plaintiff's right eye was uninjured and is 20/20. Under the circumstances, the grave injury requirement that blindness be "total" has not been met. We have considered third-party plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Hussein v. Pacific Handy Cutter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 26, 2000
272 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Hussein v. Pacific Handy Cutter

Case Details

Full title:REDA HUSSEIN, PLAINTIFF, v. PACIFIC HANDY CUTTER, INC., DEFENDANT. PACIFIC…

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

Date published: May 26, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 74

Citing Cases

Meis v. ELO Organization, L. L. C.

This case is distinguishable from those cases cited by the dissent. In those cases, each court held that the…

Velez v. Fifth Avenue Jewelers Exchange

In opposition to this branch of LVI's motion, counsel for third-party plaintiff's has not submitted any…