Masley v. Herlew Realty Corp.Masley v. Herlew Realty Corp.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, since the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff’s action against them was barred by her receipt of workers’ compensation benefits from her employer. In this regard, the defendants came forward with no evidence to suggest the existence of either a joint venture or an alter-ego relationship between them and the plaintiff’s employer (see e.g. Vita v New York Waste Servs., LLC, 34 AD3d 559 [2006]; Longshore v Davis Sys. of Capital Dist., 304 AD2d 964 [2003]; Mertz v Seibel Realty, 265 AD2d 925 [1999]; Rosenburg v Angiuli Buick, 220 AD2d 654 [1995]; Kaplan v Bayley Seton Hosp., 201 AD2d 461 [1994]).
Furthermore, the contention of the defendant Herlew, LLC (hereinafter the LLC) that it is a coemployee of the plaintiff and therefore entitled to the workers’ compensation defense (see
The defendants’ remaining arguments are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal, or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.