Seebeck v. Finetta
Roseanne Seebeck v. William Finetta, (And a Third-Party Action.)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The plaintiff Roseanne Seebeck and the defendant, coemployees, were both acting in the course of their mutual employment when the defendant’s automobile struck Roseanne (see, Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140 ; Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888 , affd 8 NY2d 1152 ; Smithline v Ghessi, 25 AD2d 841 ; Pantolo v Lane, 185 Misc 221 ). Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendant since workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available to the injured plaintiff (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.