Kingstone Ins. Co. v. Barranco

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed dismissal of the injured worker's Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims arising from a ladder fall at a one-family residence. The court held that Marina Fronshtein was protected by the homeowner's exemption and that claims against Marat Fronshtein were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's coemployee exclusivity provision; the defendants' cross-appeal concerning amendment of their answer was dismissed as academic.

Holdings

1. A homeowner is protected by the exemption when the premises consist of a one- or two-family residence and the owner did not direct or control the work. Marina established those conditions, and Barranco failed to raise a triable issue of fact; summary judgment dismissing the claims against her was proper.
2. The Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy for an injury caused by a coemployee acting within the scope of employment, absent a willful or intentional tort. Because Marat and Barranco were coemployees acting within the scope of employment, the claims against Marat were barred.
3. The cross-appeal concerning leave to amend the answer to assert collateral-estoppel and res judicata defenses was dismissed as academic in light of the affirmance of the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Marina Fronshtein established entitlement to the homeowner's exemption from liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
2. Whether Marat Fronshtein was Barranco's coemployee acting within the scope of employment, such that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision barred the Labor Law claims against him.
3. Whether defendants' cross-appeal concerning leave to amend the answer to assert collateral-estoppel and res judicata defenses remained justiciable after affirmance of the judgment.

Disposition

affirmed