Maropakis v. Stillwell Materials Corp.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Paguay v. Cup of Tea, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Velazquez-Guadalupe v. Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Bello v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Fajardo v. Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matias v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Wilson v. A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Mateo v. 1875 Lexington, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Baldwin v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 16, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 11; Cronin v Perry, 244 AD2d 448, 449 [1997]). “ [Controversies regarding the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law rest within the primary jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, including issues as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship” (Santiago v Dedvukaj, 167 AD2d 529 [1990] [citation omitted]). The determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board is final and binding, and a plaintiff may not maintain an action against a defendant from whom he or she has accepted workers’ compensation benefits by arguing that he or she was actually employed by a different entity (id.; see also Decavallas v Pappantoniou, 300 AD2d 617, 619 [2002]; see generally Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 910 [1983]).
Here, the defendants, the plaintiff’s employer and a co-employee involved in the subject accident, submitted documents from the Workers’ Compensation Board, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was awarded workers’ compensation benefits under the policy of the defendant employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Thus, the plaintiff cannot maintain the instant action, and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff s cross motion for summary judgment. Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.