Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
30 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Melson v. Sebastianogreen2 sentences2013Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see DeJesus v Todaro, 48 AD3d 341, 343-344 [2008]; Melson v Sebastiano, 32 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2006]; Lamm v Lore, 247 AD2d 878, 878-879 [1998]). 2013Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see DeJesus v Todaro, 48 AD3d 341, 343-344 [2008]; Melson v Sebastiano, 32 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2006]; Lamm v Lore, 247 AD2d 878, 878-879 [1998]). | 2 | 3 |
DeJesus v. Todarogreen2 sentences2013Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see DeJesus v Todaro, 48 AD3d 341, 343-344 [2008]; Melson v Sebastiano, 32 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2006]; Lamm v Lore, 247 AD2d 878, 878-879 [1998]). 2013Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see DeJesus v Todaro, 48 AD3d 341, 343-344 [2008]; Melson v Sebastiano, 32 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2006]; Lamm v Lore, 247 AD2d 878, 878-879 [1998]). | 2 | 3 |
Sulecki v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2013Indeed, defendant established that, as the sole shareholder and president of Shanley Corp., he and Shanley Corp. are in essence the same legal entity, i.e., plaintiffs employer, for purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Sulecki v City of New York, 74 AD3d 454, 454-455 [2010]; see also Carty v East 175th St. 2013Indeed, defendant established that, as the sole shareholder and president of Shanley Corp., he and Shanley Corp. are in essence the same legal entity, i.e., plaintiffs employer, for purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Sulecki v City of New York, 74 AD3d 454, 454-455 [2010]; see also Carty v East 175th St. | 2 | 3 |
Lamm v. Loregreen2 sentences2013Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see DeJesus v Todaro, 48 AD3d 341, 343-344 [2008]; Melson v Sebastiano, 32 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2006]; Lamm v Lore, 247 AD2d 878, 878-879 [1998]). 2013Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see DeJesus v Todaro, 48 AD3d 341, 343-344 [2008]; Melson v Sebastiano, 32 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2006]; Lamm v Lore, 247 AD2d 878, 878-879 [1998]). | 2 | 3 |
Samuel v. Fourth Avenue Associates, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Assoc., LLC, 75 AD3d 594, 595 [2010]; Constantine v Premier Cab Corp., 295 AD2d 303, 304 [2002]). 2012Assoc., LLC, 75 AD3d 594, 594-595 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.green2 sentences2011Tool Corp. ( 51 NY2d 152, 162 [1980], rearg denied 52 NY2d 829 [1980]), i.e., that an employer that voluntarily assumes the assets, obligations and liabilities of a third-party tortfeasor cannot avail itself of the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Oliver v N.L. 1986The record in Billy (supra) established that the machine which allegedly caused the decedent’s injuries was designed and manufactured more than 20 years prior to the accident by two corporate entities which merged with the employer prior to the date of the accident. | 2 | 2 |
Werner v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025Here, the defendants established that the allegations in the complaint are barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) ( see Cunningham v State of New York , 60 NY2d 248, 252 ; Werner v State of New York , 53 NY2d 346, 355 ; Pereira v St. 1994Plaintiff is barred by the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 from maintaining this action against Treffiletti (see, Werner v State of New York, 53 NY2d 346 ; Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 148 AD2d 690, 691 ). | 1 | 2 |
Miller v. Huntington Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025Joseph's Cemetery , 54 AD3d 835, 837 ; Beja v Meadowbrook Ford , 48 AD3d 495, 496 ; Miller v Huntington Hosp. , 15 AD3d 548, 549 ; Talcove v Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 247 AD2d 464, 465 ; see also Gagliardi v Trapp , 221 AD2d 315, 316 ). 2008Roux Fine Dining Chartwheel, 18 AD3d 274, 275 [2005]; Conde v Yeshiva Univ., 16 AD3d 185, 187 [2005]; Miller v Huntington Hosp., 15 AD3d 548, 549-550 [2005]), or otherwise failed to give rise to any cause of action (see Ortega v City of New York, 9 NY3d 69 [2007]; Murphy v American Home Prods. | 1 | 2 |
Gagliardi v. Trappgreen1 sentence2025Joseph's Cemetery , 54 AD3d 835, 837 ; Beja v Meadowbrook Ford , 48 AD3d 495, 496 ; Miller v Huntington Hosp. , 15 AD3d 548, 549 ; Talcove v Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 247 AD2d 464, 465 ; see also Gagliardi v Trapp , 221 AD2d 315, 316 ). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.green1 sentence2024With respect to the merits of that part of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to the issue of Suburban's liability, we conclude that, although plaintiff established as a matter of law that defendants were negligent and that their negligence caused injuries to plaintiff, defendants raised triable issues of fact whether plaintiff was a special employee of Suburban and, as a result, whether her claims against Suburban were precluded by the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) ( see generally Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp ., 78 NY2d 553, 557-55 | 1 | 1 |
Power v. Frasiergreen1 sentence2022Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see Power v Frasier , 131 AD3d 461, 462 [2d Dept 2015]), and the court therefore erred in denying that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross claims against him on the ground that the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6). | 1 | 1 |
Fung v. Japan Airlines Co.green1 sentence2019A-Z established that plaintiff's claims are precluded by the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 29(6) ( see generally Fung v Japan Airline Co. , Ltd. , 9 NY3d 351, 357 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Figueiredo v. New Palace Painters Supply Co.green1 sentence2016Contrary to defendants’ contention that Glenwood Management Corp. was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer, 56th Realty, LLC, the record indicates only that Glenwood was the managing agent for 56th Realty, consistent with their management agreement; that the two entities have a principal in common is insufficient to establish that they were alter egos (see Figueiredo v New Palace Painters Supply Co. Inc., 39 AD3d 363, 364 [1st Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Beaucejour v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co.green1 sentence2015Painting (see Vitello v Amboy Bus Co., 83 AD3d 932, 933-934 [2011]; Beaucejour v General Linen Supply & Laundry Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 444, 444-445 [2007]; Villatoro v Grand Blvd. | 1 | 1 |
Vitello v. Amboy Bus Co.green1 sentence2015Painting (see Vitello v Amboy Bus Co., 83 AD3d 932, 933-934 [2011]; Beaucejour v General Linen Supply & Laundry Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 444, 444-445 [2007]; Villatoro v Grand Blvd. | 1 | 1 |
Constantine v. Premier Cab Corp.green1 sentence2014Assoc., LLC, 75 AD3d 594, 595 [2010]; Constantine v Premier Cab Corp., 295 AD2d 303, 304 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2012With respect to the alternative ground for affirmance advanced by Dunkirk Resort (see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]), namely, that it should have been granted summary judgment based on the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, we conclude that it failed to meet its burden of establishing the applicability of that dispositive defense as a matter of law (see generally Samuel v Fourth Ave. | 1 | 1 |
Oliver v. N.L. Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2011Indus., 170 AD2d 959, 960 [1991]). | 1 | 1 |
| Elmore v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conde v. Yeshiva Universitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. Canteen Vending Services Roux Fine Dining Chartwheelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Villatoro v. Grand Boulevard Realty, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ricca v. Bremgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Finch v. Swinglygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cunningham v. State
green
2 sentences2025Here, the defendants established that the allegations in the complaint are barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) ( see Cunningham v State of New York , 60 NY2d 248, 252 ; Werner v State of New York , 53 NY2d 346, 355 ; Pereira v St. 1999The appellants, Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc. (hereinafter KPSC-Flatbush), Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Avenue U, Inc. (hereinafter KPSC-Avenue U), and Alexander’s of Brooklyn, Inc. (hereinafter Alexander’s), moved for summary judgment, alleging that they were the plaintiff’s employers because they not only owned the premises but also conducted business under the name of the entity which employed him, and that the action against them was therefore barred by the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) (see, Claudio v Lefrak, 100 AD2d 837 ; C | 2 | 1999–2025 |
Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Contrs., Inc., 5 NY3d 427 [2005]; Tonking v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 3 NY3d 486 [2004]; Castilla v K.A.B. 2007Contrs., Inc., 5 NY3d 427 [2005]; Flores v Lower E. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999We note that there was no showing of any deliberate conduct by Capital Cities such as would suffice to bring the case within the exception to the exclusivity rule (see, Acevedo v Consolidated Edison Co., 189 AD2d 497, 500-501 , lv dismissed 82 NY2d 748 ). 1999We note that there was no showing of any deliberate conduct by Capital Cities such as would suffice to bring the case within the exception to the exclusivity rule (see, Acevedo v Consolidated Edison Co., 189 AD2d 497, 500-501 , lv dismissed 82 NY2d 748 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Gonzales v. Armac Industries, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1999That being the case, Lavigna’s claims against Capital Cities were properly dismissed as barred by the exclusivity rule of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see, Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1, 8 ). 1999That being the case, Lavigna’s claims against Capital Cities were properly dismissed as barred by the exclusivity rule of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see, Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1, 8 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Pereira v. St. Joseph's Cemetery
green
1 sentence2025Joseph's Cemetery , 54 AD3d 835, 837 ; Beja v Meadowbrook Ford , 48 AD3d 495, 496 ; Miller v Huntington Hosp. , 15 AD3d 548, 549 ; Talcove v Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 247 AD2d 464, 465 ; see also Gagliardi v Trapp , 221 AD2d 315, 316 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Beja v. Ford
green
1 sentence2025Joseph's Cemetery , 54 AD3d 835, 837 ; Beja v Meadowbrook Ford , 48 AD3d 495, 496 ; Miller v Huntington Hosp. , 15 AD3d 548, 549 ; Talcove v Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 247 AD2d 464, 465 ; see also Gagliardi v Trapp , 221 AD2d 315, 316 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Talcove v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.
green
1 sentence2025Joseph's Cemetery , 54 AD3d 835, 837 ; Beja v Meadowbrook Ford , 48 AD3d 495, 496 ; Miller v Huntington Hosp. , 15 AD3d 548, 549 ; Talcove v Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 247 AD2d 464, 465 ; see also Gagliardi v Trapp , 221 AD2d 315, 316 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Waldorf v. Waldorf
green
1 sentence2020We dismiss Adapt's appeal because it is not aggrieved by the portions of the order that it appeals from, which constituted dicta ( see Waldorf v Waldorf , 117 AD3d 1035 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gitlin v. Chirinkin
green
1 sentence2020We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the City's motion which was for leave to amend its third-party answer to assert an affirmative defense pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 11 ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Confino , 175 AD3d 536 , 537-538; Gitlin v Chirinkin , 60 AD3d 901, 902 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mateo v. 1875 Lexington, LLC
green
1 sentence2019A-Z submitted evidence showing that following his accident, plaintiff applied for, was awarded, and received Workers' Compensation benefits under A-Z's Workers' Compensation policy ( see Mateo v 1875 Lexington, LLC , 134 AD3d 1072 [2d Dept 2015]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Batts v. IBEX Construction, LLC
green
1 sentence2014The third-party defendant thus failed to satisfy its burden of showing, prima facie, that it is entitled to assert an exclusivity defense under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, based on an alter ego theory (see Batts v IBEX Constr., LLC, 112 AD3d 765 , 767 [2013]; Samuel v Fourth Ave. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Terry v. Maurice Pastries, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2010If it is ultimately determined that plaintiff was defendant’s employee at the time of the accident then, and only then, does the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 have any relevance to this action. 4 In that regard, plaintiff argues that defendant’s admission that plaintiff was not covered by his firm’s workers’ compensation policy is a sufficient basis upon which to grant summary judgment (see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 , 224-225 [1976]; Terry v Maurice Pastries, Inc., 34 AD3d 328 [2006]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Ramnarine v. Memorial Center for Cancer & Allied Diseases green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Tonking v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Ortega v. City of New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Hernandez v. Sanchez green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Smith v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Cipriano v. FYM Associates green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Jackson v. Tivoli Towers Housing Co. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Gannon v. JWP Forest Electric Corp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Claudio v. Lefrak green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Bradford v. Air La Carte, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Restivo v. Weinreb neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Orzechowski v. Warner-Lambert Co. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.