From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Maigo Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 1, 1971
37 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

July 1, 1971

Appeal from the Erie Special Term.

Present — Goldman, P.J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We affirm on the opinion at Special Term which correctly concluded that although appellants are fully owned subsidiaries controlled, dominated and financed by Courier Express, nevertheless, appellants were and are separate and distinct legal entities. Further we note that even though appellants are subsidiary corporations of their parent corporation, Courier Express, they may not be considered as "employees" of Courier Express and hence fellow-employees of these plaintiffs-respondents "in the same employ" within the meaning of subdivision 6 of section 29 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law (see Daisernia v. Co-operative G.L.F. Holding Corp., 26 A.D.2d 594). Plainly, the use of the phrase "another in the same employ" as used in subdivision 6 of section 29 refers to fellow-employees. An "employee" is defined in the statute as being a "person" (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, subd. 4), while "employer" is defined as "a person, partnership, association, corporation" (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, subd. 3). Unlike Daisernia, the affirmative defenses raised here present no issue of fact requiring a trial and they were properly stricken.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Maigo Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 1, 1971
37 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Thomas v. Maigo Corporation

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES R. THOMAS, Respondent, v. MAIGO CORPORATION et al., Appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1971

Citations

37 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Woodling v. Garrett Corp.

These facts, which would have sufficed to insulate TG from common-law liability for the acts of TGA, also…

Wells v. Firestone Co.

(Employee of subsidiary brought products liability action against parent.) See also Thomas v Maigo Corp, 37…