Majority
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a). The allegation that defendant intentionally ignored a known hazard does not bring the case within the “intentional injury” exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 11; Acevedo v Consolidated Edison Co., 189 AD2d 497 , 500-501, l v dismissed 82 NY2d 748 ; Briggs v Pymm Thermometer Corp., 147 AD2d 433 , 435; Ferrara v American ACMI, 122 AD2d 930 , 931; Finch v Swingly, 42 AD2d 1035 ; see also, Patterson v Salvation Army, 203 AD2d 87 , 88). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J.— Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
Cases cited
- Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. 189 AD2d 497 at 500-501 p. 834
- Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp. 147 AD2d 433 at 435 p. 834
- Ferrara v. American ACMI 122 AD2d 930 at 931 p. 834
- Patterson v. Army 203 AD2d 87 at 88 p. 834