Botwinick v. Ogden

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 59 N.Y.2d 909, 466 N.Y.S.2d 291, 453 N.E.2d 520, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3235

Decision Date: 6/16/1983

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Botwinick v. Ogden, 59 N.Y.2d 909, 466 N.Y.S.2d 291, 453 N.E.2d 520, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3235 (1983)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1983

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 83 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.65

N.Y. App. Term.7

N.Y. Sup. Ct.6

Ill.1

Md.1

N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2025Guang Qi Lin v. Xiaoping Lu N.Y. App. Div.
2024State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amtrust N. Am., Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
2023Lall v. Harnick N.Y. App. Div.
2022Matter of Timperio v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. N.Y. App. Div.
2022Chin v. Doherty Enters. N.Y. App. Div.
202121st Century Pharmacy v. American Intl. Group N.Y. App. Div.
2020Madison Prods. of USA, Inc. v. American Tr. Ins. Co. N.Y. App. Term.
2019Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co. N.Y. App. Term.
2019Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. N.Y. App. Term.
2019Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 2 cases

Garcia v. Iserson
Golini v. Nachtigall

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Sylvia Botwinick et al., Respondents, v Herbert S. Ogden et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Marshal S. Endick and Stuart E. Kahan for appellants.
Emilio Nunez, Harry H. Lipsig and Pamela Anagnos Liapakis for respondents.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court with direction to defer disposition of appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint until final resolution of a prompt application to determine the rights if any of respondents to benefits under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

In O’Rourke v Long (41 NY2d 219) we held that primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board and that it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board. Application of the principles enunciated in O’Rourke to the present case requires that disposition of the motion of Conde Nast Publications and Dr. Ogden to dismiss the complaint herein be held in abeyance pending determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law to the claims asserted by respondents. By like token we now refrain from expression of any views with respect to the merits of the motion to dismiss.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein. Question certified answered in the negative.

We observe that our decisions in Garcia v Iserson (33 NY2d 421) and Golini v Nachtigall (38 NY2d 745) antedated our decision in O’Rourke and were made without reference to the procedural rule of primary jurisdiction announced in O’Rourke.