| Hyman v Agtuca Realty Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09889 [79 AD3d 1100] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Giovanni Hyman, Appellant, v Agtuca Realty Corporationet al., Defendants, and Aimes Collision, Inc., Doing Business as Aimes Towing, Inc., et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Litchfield Cavo, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Christopher A. McLaughlin of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, J.), dated February 14, 2010, which, inter alia,granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Aimes Collision, Inc., doing business asAimes Towing, Inc., Aimes Towing & Collision, Inc., Long Island International Auto, Inc., doingbusiness as Aimes Towing, Inc., and Aimes Towing & Collision, Inc., which was, in effect, forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants on theground that the action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law,and granted that branch of those defendants' motion which was to impose sanctions on him to theextent of directing him to pay "costs and disbursements on this motion."
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when the cigarette he was smoking ignited flammablematerial while he was working in a paint mixing room at the premises of his employer, AimesTowing & Collision, Inc. (hereinafter Aimes Towing). The plaintiff commenced this actionagainst, among others, Aimes Towing and its corporate affiliates (hereinafter collectivelyAimes). Thereafter, Aimes moved, inter alia, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted Aimes' motion, and weaffirm.
The exclusive remedy available to an employee injured in the course of his employment is tofile a claim for workers' compensation benefits (see Workers' Compensation Law§§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; Cronin v Perry, 244 AD2d 448 [1997]; O'Rourke vLong, 41 NY2d 219, 221 [1976]). Here, Aimes demonstrated, prima facie, that it had a validworkers' compensation policy in effect at the time of the accident, that the plaintiff was employedby it and was under its supervision and control at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiffmade a claim for and was awarded workers' c[*2]ompensationinsurance benefits through Aimes' workers' compensation insurance carrier and had receivedsuch benefits for over 3½ years in excess of the sum of $90,000. In opposition, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Aimes' motion which was,in effect, for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, as theplaintiff's claims were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law(see Anduaga v AHRC NYC NewProjects, Inc., 57 AD3d 925 [2008]; Garcia v Pepe, 42 AD3d 427, 429 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 705 [2008]).
The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of Aimes'motion which was to impose sanctions on the plaintiff is without merit, as the order did notimpose sanctions, but awarded Aimes "costs and disbursements" only.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Florio, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.