MEDRANO v. Harold A. Gottesman, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. (2002)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Gottesman, individually and d/b/a 1120 Avenue of the Americas Associates, for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as defendant Gottesman was president of plaintiff's employer, he was under a duty to plaintiff, as plaintiff's co-employee, to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work.   Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for the alleged breach of Gottesman's duty to him is, accordingly, to seek workers' compensation benefits;  the instant action must be dismissed pursuant to Workers Compensation Law § 29(6).   We note that any duty Gottesman was under to plaintiff by reason of his ownership of the premises upon which plaintiff was allegedly injured, is, for present purposes, indistinguishable from such duty as he bore plaintiff as his co-employee (see Concepcion v. Diamond, 224 A.D.2d 189, 637 N.Y.S.2d 135;  McFarlane v. Chera, 211 A.D.2d 764, 621 N.Y.S.2d 390;  Cipriano v. FYM Assocs., 117 A.D.2d 770, 499 N.Y.S.2d 101).