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.
George P. TOMPKINS, et al., Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered November 1, 1996, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint by which the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for the employment-related injuries of the plaintiff George Tompkins. The plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that there was no coverage under the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs' allegation that the defendant's negligence caused George Tompkins' injuries by allowing him and other employees to be exposed to toxic and injurious chemicals in the course of their employment at the defendant's East Fishkill facility does not bring them within the limited exceptions to the general rule that the Workers' Compensation Law bars an employee from maintaining a common-law action to recover damages arising out of an employer's negligence (see, Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 401 N.Y.S.2d 773, 372 N.E.2d 560; Rainey v. Jefferson Vil. Condo No. 11 Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 544, 611 N.Y.S.2d 207; Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp., 147 A.D.2d 433, 537 N.Y.S.2d 553).
The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiffs' motion to serve a second amended complaint since the allegations in their proposed second amended complaint were palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp., supra; see generally, Kaplansky v. Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667, 622 N.Y.S.2d 766; Del Bourgo v. 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 A.D.2d 795, 618 N.Y.S.2d 59).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 09, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)