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.
Ruben MONAGAS, appellant, v. PEOPLE of State of New York for DIVISION OF ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, defendant, Turner Construction Corporation, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated July 1, 1998, as, upon the granting of the motion of the defendant Turner Construction Corporation for leave to renew its prior motion for summary judgment which was denied by an order of the same court dated April 30, 1996, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant Turner Construction Corporation (hereinafter Turner), formed a joint venture with Livel Mechanical & Equipment Corporation (hereinafter Livel) for the purpose of constructing an alcoholism treatment center in Brooklyn. The plaintiff, Ruben Monagas, a construction superintendent, was injured while at that job site. The plaintiff applied for, was granted, and accepted benefits for his injuries pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law, based upon his status as an employee of the Turner/Livel joint venture. Thus this action, insofar as it is asserted against Turner, is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 12, 29[6]; Werner v. State of New York, 53 N.Y.2d 346, 441 N.Y.S.2d 654, 424 N.E.2d 541; Turner v. Gannett Suburban Newspaper, 260 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 695; Monteverde v. Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 215 A.D.2d 240, 626 N.Y.S.2d 187).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: September 20, 1999
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)