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.
Ivy J. MACK, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (W. Franc Perry, J.), entered May 18, 2017, which granted defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to assert a defense based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and to dismiss the complaint based on that defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on a raised carpet while entering the building where the offices of the New York County District Attorney are located. Plaintiff, who was employed as a secretary for the District Attorney at the time of the accident, applied for and received Workers' Compensation benefits, which were paid by the City.
The court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants leave to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defense, since leave to amend is freely given and plaintiff did not show any prejudice (CPLR 3025[b]; see Kimso Apts., LLC v. Gandhi, 24 N.Y.3d 403, 411, 998 N.Y.S.2d 740, 23 N.E.3d 1008 [2014] ).
Plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law because employees of the New York County District Attorney's office are considered employees of the City of New York (see Morris v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 35, 603 N.Y.S.2d 463 [1st Dept. 1993]; Workers Compensation Law §§ 11, 29; see also Public Officer's Law § 2; Administrative Code of the City of New York, § 7–110). Furthermore, employees of the District Attorney's office, including plaintiff, are paid by the City of New York (Morris, 198 A.D.2d at 36, 603 N.Y.S.2d 463), and the City actually paid plaintiff's Workers' Compensation benefits.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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.
Docket No: 7238
Decided: October 04, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 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)