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.
Hereford Insurance Company, appellant, v. Justice Paitou, defendant, Rosillo & Licata, respondent.
Argued-March 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover the amount of a statutory lien pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(1), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated January 13, 2009, as granted the motion of the defendant Rosillo & Licata pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Workers' Compensation Law § 29(1) provides in relevant part that a workers' compensation carrier is entitled to a lien on the proceeds of a personal injury action in order to reimburse it for certain payments made on behalf of an insured “after the deduction of the reasonable and necessary expenditures, including attorney's fees, incurred in effecting such recovery.” Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant Rosillo & Licata conclusively established that, under the circumstances presented, it did not act improperly in disbursing the settlement funds at issue (see CPLR 3211[a][1] ). Moreover, the reasonable attorney's fees paid to Rosillo & Licata were not subject to the plaintiff's lien (see CPLR 3211 [a][7]; Workers' Compensation Law § 29[1]; see generally Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund, 60 N.Y.2d 131, 136). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Rosillo & Licata pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-01976 (Index No. 15958 /07)
Decided: May 11, 2010
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)