| Morato-Rodriguez v Riva Constr. Group, Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07349 [88 AD3d 549] |
| October 20, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Karlo Morato-Rodriguez, Appellant, v Riva ConstructionGroup, Inc., Respondent, and 1412 Broadway, LLC, Appellant, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for 1412 Broadway,LLC, appellant. Karl Clerkin Redmond Ryan Perry & Van Etten, LLP, Melville (James V. Derenze ofcounsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered February 14,2011, which granted defendant Riva Construction Group's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff's claims against defendant Riva arebarred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Riva demonstrated that it and nonparty WTSContracting Corp. are alter egos by establishing that they share a president and chief executive,an office manager and an office address, and were insured by the same liability and Workers'Compensation policies (see Carty v East175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 83 AD3d 529 [2011]). Although plaintiff was paidwith a WTS check and WTS was identified as his employer in the report regarding his accidentas well as in the Workers' Compensation notice of award, these facts are consistent with theaverment by the president of both Riva and WTS that WTS was merely the payroll entity for allRiva employees (cf. Vera v NYCPartnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 472 [2007]). Additionally, plaintifftestified that his supervisor, a Riva employee, was the only person who instructed him regardingthe work.[*2]
In view of the foregoing, the claimed need for furtherdiscovery in the form of depositions from defendant Riva is unavailing.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.