From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Szumowski v. PV Holding Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 1, 2011
90 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-1

Zygmunt SZUMOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. PV HOLDING CORP., Defendant–Appellant.

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, New York (Michael C. O'Malley of counsel), for appellant. Grey & Grey, LLP, Farmingdale (Sherman B. Kerner of counsel), for respondents.


Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, New York (Michael C. O'Malley of counsel), for appellant. Grey & Grey, LLP, Farmingdale (Sherman B. Kerner of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered March 23, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant's motion granted and plaintiffs' cross motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendant's favor dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to impose vicarious liability on defendant PV Holding Corp. for injuries plaintiff Zygmunt Szumowski allegedly sustained during the course of his employment at Avis when an employee of Budget Rent A Car Systems negligently operated a motor vehicle. Title to that vehicle was held by defendant. However, no liability may be imputed to defendant, because plaintiffs' “exclusive remedy” is workers' compensation (Workers' Compensation Law § 29[6]; see Kenny v. Bacolo, 61 N.Y.2d 642, 645, 472 N.Y.S.2d 78, 460 N.E.2d 219 [1983]; Naso v. Lafata, 4 N.Y.2d 585, 590, 176 N.Y.S.2d 622, 152 N.E.2d 59 [1958] ). Given that plaintiffs did not assert any allegation that defendant had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence, the motion court should have dismissed the complaint ( see Chiriboga v. Ebrahimoff, 281 A.D.2d 353, 354, 722 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2001] ). We find plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary unavailing.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, CATTERSON, ABDUS–SALAAM, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Szumowski v. PV Holding Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 1, 2011
90 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Szumowski v. PV Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Zygmunt SZUMOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. PV HOLDING CORP.…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8674
933 N.Y.S.2d 552

Citing Cases

Mansour v. Paddock Chevrolet, Inc.

We thus agree with Paddock that plaintiff's claims against it are barred. Paddock correctly contends that New…

Mansour v. Paddock Chevrolet, Inc.

Paddock correctly contends that New York has rejected the "dual capacity" doctrine (see generally Billy v…