1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.2d
  4. 283 A.D.2d
  5. 283 A.D.2d 374 (2001)
 

POLONETSKY v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.

283 A.D.2d 374 (2001)

724 N.Y.S.2d 861

RICHARD POLONETSKY, Respondent, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al., Appellants, and HARVARD MAINTENANCE INC., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided May 31, 2001.

Harvard's cross claims against Broadcasting, plaintiff's employer, are barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, and should have been dismissed. New York does not recognize the "dual capacity doctrine" advocated by Harvard (see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 158). Ambroco made a prima facie showing that it did not own, operate or maintain the premises where plaintiff fell, and Harvard's conclusory allegations...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases