Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Wilfredo Alexis CASTILLO, Respondent, v. 711 GROUP, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. 3-D Laboratory, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Third-party defendant 3-D Laboratory, Inc. moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party action against it, claiming the injuries plaintiff sustained to his left index finger did not qualify as a “grave injury” under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the third-party defendant's motion, but searched the record and awarded plaintiff and defendant/third-party plaintiff 711 Group, Inc. partial summary judgment on the issue whether plaintiff suffered a “grave injury” under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. We affirm.
Workers' Compensation Law § 11 expressly lists the “loss of an index finger” as a “grave injury.” Consistent with the principle that “[w]ords in a statute are to be given their plain meaning without resort to forced or unnatural interpretations,” this Court has held that “the word ‘finger’ means the whole finger, not just its tip” (Castro v. United Container Mach. Group, 96 N.Y.2d 398, 401, 736 N.Y.S.2d 287, 761 N.E.2d 1014 [2001] ).
Here, plaintiff demonstrated that he lost both interphalangeal joints of his left index finger, leaving a “painful amputation stump” that required two corrective surgeries to desensitize. Thus, plaintiff established that he suffered the “loss of an index finger” within the meaning of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (cf. Mentesana v. Bernard Janowitz Constr. Corp., 36 A.D.3d 769, 770, 828 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2d Dept.2007]; Blackburn v. Wysong & Miles Co., 11 A.D.3d 421, 422, 783 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2d Dept.2004]; McCoy v. Queens Hydraulic Co., 286 A.D.2d 425, 425, 729 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2d Dept.2001] ).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 12, 2008
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)