Alam v Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc.
2008 NY Slip Op 09540 [57 AD3d 457]
December 2, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


Abdul Alam, Respondent,
v
Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc., et al.,Defendant. Hereford Insurance Company, Nonparty Appellant.

[*1]Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset, N.Y. (Lisa Levine and Donald S. Neumann,Jr., of counsel), for nonparty appellant.

Kagan & Gertel, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Irving Gertel of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Hereford Insurance Companyappeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated July 11,2007, as granted the plaintiff's motion to approve a settlement, nunc pro tunc, and to extinguish itsworkers' compensation lien.

Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be a notice of appealby the nonparty Hereford Insurance Company (see CPLR 2001; Matter of Tagliaferri vWeiler, 1 NY3d 605 [2004]; Wolff v Hubert, 200 App Div 124 [1922]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and theplaintiff's motion is denied.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, nonparty Hereford Insurance Company(hereinafter Hereford) may assert a workers' compensation lien against the plaintiff's proposedsettlement with the defendants Hercules Tire and Rubber Company and Cooper Tire and RubberCompany, noncovered persons (see Insurance Law § 5104 [b]), in this action (seeWorkers' Compensation Law § 29 [1]; Matter of McHenry v State Ins. Fund, 236AD2d 89 [1997]; Stedman v City of New York, 107 AD2d 600 [1985]; cf. Aetna Cas.& Sur. Co. v Jackowe, 96 AD2d 37, 42 [1983]). Since Hereford may assert its lien, the plaintiffwas required to comply with the provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). Theplaintiff's motion papers failed to include much of the information required by Workers' CompensationLaw § 29 (5) and it was supported only by a rather conclusory affidavit from the plaintiff'scounsel. Accordingly, the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to judicially approve thesettlement and to extinguish Hereford's lien (see Matter of Snyder v CNA Ins. Cos., 306AD2d 677 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur. [See 16 Misc3d 1110(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51377(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.