Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alam v. Taxi Wheels to Lease

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


December 2, 2008

ABDUL ALAM, RESPONDENT,
v.
TAXI WHEELS TO LEASE, INC., DEFENDANT, HEREFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, NONPARTY-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Hereford Insurance Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated July 11, 2007, as granted the plaintiff's motion to approve a settlement, nunc pro tunc, and to extinguish its Workers' Compensation lien.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

(Index No. 46810/03)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be a notice of appeal by the nonparty Hereford Insurance Company (see CPLR 2001; Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler, 1 NY3d 605; Wolff v Hubert, 200 App Div 124); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion is denied.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, nonparty Hereford Insurance Company (hereinafter Hereford) may assert a Workers' Compensation lien against the plaintiff's proposed settlement with the defendants Hercules Tire and Rubber Company and Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, non-covered persons (see Insurance Law § 5104[b]), in this action (see Workers' Compensation Law § 29[1]; Matter of McHenry v State Ins. Fund, 236 AD2d 89; Stedman v City of New York, 107 AD2d 600; cf. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Jackowe, 96 AD2d 37, 42). Since Hereford may assert its lien, the plaintiff was required to comply with the provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5). The plaintiff's motion papers failed to include much of the information required by Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5) and it was supported only by a rather conclusory affidavit from the plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to judicially approve the settlement and to extinguish Hereford's lien (see Matter of Snyder v CNA Ins. Cos., 306 AD2d 677).

SPOLZINO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and BELEN, JJ., concur.

20081202

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.