Majority
p. 805Roseanne Seebeck et al., Appellants, v William Finetta, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)
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.
Cases cited
- Kunze v. Jones 8 NY2d 1152 p. 805
- Pantolo v. Lane 185 Misc 221 p. 805