Plaintiff, a volunteer member of a Volunteer Fire Department [Defendant] allegedly was injured when he fell from the back of a fire truck operated by a fellow volunteer firefighter [Firefighter]. The accident occurred at a "fire track" allegedly owned by the defendant Ridge Fire District, sued as Ridge Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. [Ridge] during an event held in preparation for a firefighting competition. Based on a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board that Plaintiff was injured "in the line of duty," Plaintiff was awarded benefits under the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the Defendants, Firefighter and Ridge, among others, alleging that Firefighter negligently operated the fire truck at a dangerous speed during preparations for the firefighting competition. Defendants, Firefighter and Ridge separately moved to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them [See pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)]. Supreme Court granted those defendants' motions and Plaintiff appeal the Supreme Court's rulings.
The Appellate Division, citing §19 of the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law, noted, in pertinent part, §19 provides that "[t]he benefits provided by this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy of a volunteer firefighter" for injuries sustained "in line of duty ... as against ... any person or agency acting under governmental or statutory authority in furtherance of the duties or activities in relation to which any such injury resulted."
Thus, opined the court, should a volunteer firefighter sustains an injury in the line of duty, the injured firefighter is barred from seeking recovery against either a fire company with which he or she had an employer/employee relationship or fellow firefighters acting "in furtherance of their duties and activities* [and §20 of the of the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law] incorporates by reference subdivision 6 of §29 of the Workers' Compensation Law, which provides that compensation is the exclusive remedy of an employee injured by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ" (See Malone v Jacobs, 88 AD2d 927)."
Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly granted the motions of Defendant and Firefighter pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
With respect to Ridge, the Appellate Division said Ridge submitted documentary evidence conclusively establishing that it did not own the property where the accident occurred, and thus, that "a material fact as claimed by the [Plaintiff] is not a fact at all" and Supreme Court properly granted Ridge's motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
* See Lima v State of New York, 74 NY2d 694 and Theodoreu v Chester Fire Dist., 12 AD3d 499).
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division decision posted on the Internet.