Williams v. MV Transportation

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, on 11/25/2013. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

rU.. r,:h~',
IN Cl'-'.1K'S

r,

.r:., '.

I

0..•. DISTRICT C e ' · D.\c.I.Y. t£W~

* DEC 0 3 2:13 * ~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MOOKLl'N OFfiCE

------------------------------------------------------x
DARRYL WILLIAMS,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,

12-CV-5843 (ENV) (MDG)

-v-

MV TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------x

VIT ALIANO, D.J.,
On October 31, 2012, pro se plaintiff Darryl Williams filed a complaint against
defendant MV Transportation ("MVT") in Supreme Court, Kings County. On
November 27, 2012, MVT removed that action to this Court on the ground of
diversity of citizenship. After MVT prevailed on a motion to dismiss, (see Dkt. No.
24), Williams filed an amended complaint, and MVT moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on the ground that it failed to state a plausible claim. By Order dated
October 4, 2013, this Court denied that motion, but ordered MVT to submit a
declaration and supporting documentation as to whether Williams was MVT's
employee at the time of the incidents alleged in the amended complaint, such that any
claim would be precluded by New York's Workers' Compensation Law ("WCL").
MVT has submitted documentation demonstrating that Williams was its
employee from March 1,2010 until August 2,2012, and that the incident of which

1

Williams complains took place during that time. (See Dkt. No. 49.) Williams
appears to agree. (See Dkt. No. 50.)

Discussion
The WCL requires employers to pay benefits, including medical care and
replacement of lost wages, to workers who are injured or disabled during the course
of their employment, regardless of where the fault lies. See N.Y. Workers' Compo
Law § 10(1). "The benefits provided under the WCL are the exclusive remedies for
injuries sustained by employees in the course of employment, and the Law thus
forecloses any suit by an employee against an employer in tort." Liberty Mut. Ins.

Co. v. Hurlbut, 585 F.3d 639, 641 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing N.Y. Workers' Compo Law §
11). In his complaint and various submissions, Williams alleges that he was injured
while riding on a bus operated by MVT.l It is now clear that this alleged injury took
place during the course of his employment. Accordingly, this suit is precluded by
the WCL, and the complaint must be dismissed.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The
Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an

A full statement of facts relevant to this case is set out in this Court's October 4,2013 Order.
(See Dkt. No. 48.)

2

appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

The Clerk of Court

is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the easy.,
SO ORDERED.

/S/ Judge Eric N. Vitaliano
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
November 25, 2013

3