TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Donohue v. L. DeLea & Sons, Inc.

Janine Donohue v. L. DeLea & Sons, Inc., and DeLea Leasing Corp.

Donohue v. L. DeLea & Sons, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 602 (2008)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 18, 2008
Citations
56 A.D.2d 602871 N.Y.S.2d 1551

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), entered June 6, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants DeLea Leasing Corp., East Northport Equipment Corp., DeLea Landscaping Supplies, Inc., and DeLea Sod Farms, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant DeLea Leasing Corp. and denied her cross motion, among other things, for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant DeLea Leasing Corp.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while operating a truck in the course of her employment. The truck was leased to the plaintiff’s employer by the defendant DeLea Leasing Corp. (hereinafter the owner). The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, her employer and the owner. The Supreme Court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, based on the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The complaint asserts, in pertinent part, that the owner negligently failed to inspect, maintain, and repair the truck. The owner established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that it was not responsible for the maintenance *603 and repair of the truck, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Delio v Percom Equip. Rental Corp., 249 AD2d 354, 354-355 [1998]; Jaglall v Supreme Petroleum Co. of N.J., 185 AD2d 971 [1992]; see also Rodriguez v Lodato Rental, 267 AD2d 293 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the owner summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Lifson, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31494(U) .]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Jaglall v. Supreme Petroleum Co. of N.J., 185 A.D.2d 971 (1992) 12
Delio v. Percom Equip. Rental Corp., 249 A.D.2d 354 (1998) 3
Rodriguez v. Lodato Rental, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 293 (1999) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list