Matter of Dorosz v. Green Seifter

8 Citing cases

  1. Cox v. McKernan

    11-CV-5980 (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. May. 14, 2013)

    An employer "sponsors" the activity if the employer "overt[ly] encourage[s]" the employee to participate in the event. Dorosz v. Green & Seifter, 708 N.E.2d 162, 165 (N.Y. 1999) ("That the employer may have known of the activity, and even acquiesced in it, does not constitute overt encouragement"). Employer liability under NYWCL § 10 is an exclusive remedy.

  2. Booth v. New York State

    58 A.D.3d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    We affirm. As claimant's participation in the event was neither required nor compensated by the employer, his injury is compensable only if the employer overtly encouraged his participation ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 10; Matter of Huff v Department of Corrections, 52 AD3d 1003, 1004; Matter of Mack v Kings County Hosp. Ctr., 41 AD3d 1063, 1064; see also Matter of Dorosz v Green Seifter, 92 NY2d 672, 676). Moreover, whether a claimant's injury arose in the course of employment is a factual decision for the Board and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence ( Matter of Bogert v E.B. Design Air, Inc., 38 AD3d 1125, 1125; accord Matter of Eddy v Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Auth., 248 AD2d 769, 770).

  3. In re Huff

    52 A.D.3d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and the employer and its workers' compensation carrier appeal. Where an employee is neither required nor compensated to participate in an off-duty athletic-related activity, an injury attributable to such is compensable only when the employer "otherwise sponsors the activity" (Workers' Compensation Law § 10; see Matter of Dorosz v Green Seifter, 92 NY2d 672, 676; Matter of Mack v Kings County Hosp. Ctr., 41 AD3d 1063, 1064; Matter of Bogert v E.B. Design Air, Inc., 38 AD3d 1125, 1125). Sponsorship has been found when there is an affirmative act or overt encouragement by the employer to participate ( see Matter of Mack v Kings County Hosp. Ctr., 41 AD3d at 1064; Matter of Bogert v E.B. Design Air, Inc., 38 AD3d at 1125).

  4. Claim of Mack v. Kings County Hospital Center

    41 A.D.3d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    We note that "overt encouragement . . . require[s] more than `notices of the activity on the company bulletin board, announcement in its news letter or even use of its equipment to duplicate notices of or about the activity'" ( Matter of De Carr v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 151 AD2d 935, 936 [citation omitted]). Similarly, the fact that an activity is held to promote "morale of the office" is not a basis for a finding of compensability (Minkowitz, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 64, Workers' Compensation Law § 10, at 414, 416; see Matter of Dorosz v Green Seifter, 92 NY2d 672, 676). Here, although the employer paid for food at the picnic and allowed flyers advertising the event to be distributed throughout the department, employees were charged a $7 admission fee to offset the cost of the event which, although limited to department personnel, was held away from the employer's premises on a day that claimant did not typically work. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the employer expressly invited or suggested that employees participate in any of the activities, including the basketball game during which claimant was injured, or that the employer provided equipment for the activities ( cf. Matter of Bogert v E.B. Design Air, Inc., 38 AD3d 1125, 1125-1126; Matter of Kobre v Camp MogenAvraham, 255 AD2d 636, 637-638).

  5. Bogert v. Board

    38 A.D.3d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1) sets forth three conditions under which workers' compensation benefits may be awarded for injuries incurred during voluntary participation in an off-duty athletic activity that is not a part of the employee's work-related duties. Specifically, an award is foreclosed under section 10 unless "the employer (1) required the employee to participate in the activity, (2) paid the worker to do so, or (3) sponsored the activity" ( Matter of Dorosz v Green Seifter, 92 NY2d 672, 676). This case involves the condition applicable when the employer sponsors the activity, which is established by evidence of "some type of affirmative act or overt encouragement by the employer" ( Matter of Kobre v Camp Mogen Avraham, 255 AD2d 636, 637; see Matter of Dorosz v Green Seifter, supra at 676; Matter of Koch v Rockland County Sheriffs Dept, 289 AD2d 865, 866, lv denied 98 NY2d 601; Matter of Baker v Sentry Group, 269 AD2d 668).

  6. Claim of Koch v. Rockland Sheriff's Dept

    289 A.D.2d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the injury did not arise out of claimant's employment, prompting this appeal by claimant. Where, as here, an employee is injured in a voluntary athletic activity which is not part of the employee's work-related duties, Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1) precludes an award of workers' compensation benefits unless one of three conditions is met (see, Matter of Dorosz v. Green Seifter, 92 N.Y.2d 672, 675-676). Claimant in this case relies on the condition applicable when the employer "otherwise sponsors the activity", which is satisfied by evidence of the employer's "overt encouragement" of participation in the activity (id., at 676).

  7. Barbieri v. Mount Sinai Hospital

    264 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 18 times
    Holding plaintiff's affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment fails to allege the injuries which are required by section 11 of the Workers Compensation Law

    Section 10 of the Workers' Compensation Law requires employers to secure compensation for employees who suffer disability or death from injuries arising out of their employment, with certain exceptions not relevant herein. This provision is a means of establishing a no-fault insurance regime protecting employees during their periods of disability arising from work-related injuries (cf., Dorosz v. Green Seifter, 92 N.Y.2d 672). For employers, this quasi-contractual financial obligation was intended simply to have been part of the cost of doing business (Westchester Lighting Co. v. Westchester County Small Estates Administration, 278 N.Y. 175). Labor Law § 240 Lab. claims have long been subsumed into the exclusive protections afforded by the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Pagano v. Colonial Sand Gravel Co., 75 A.D.2d 578). The remedy to the employee as against the employer is limited to filing a Workers' Compensation claim (Cronin v. Perry, 244 A.D.2d 448) unless the employer failed to secure compensation insurance (§ 11). For employees, the statute ensures a swift and sure source of benefits in exchange for the loss of a common-law tort claim for which benefits, potentially, might be greater (Maas v. Cornell University, 253 A.D.2d 1, affd 94 N.Y.2d 87). Section 11, as amended in 1996, allows for an alternative remedy under limited circumstances. Although making clear that the liability of the employer u

  8. Matter of Baker v. Sentry Group

    269 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and the employer appeals. Where, as here, the voluntary athletic activity is not part of the employee's work-related duties, Workers' Compensation Law § 10 Work. Comp.(1) precludes an award of workers' compensation insurance benefits unless one of three conditions is met (see, Matter of Dorosz v. Green Seifter, 92 N.Y.2d 672, 675-676). The Board in this case relied on the condition applicable when the employer "otherwise sponsors the activity", which is satisfied by evidence of the employer's overt encouragement of participation in the activity (see, id., at 676).