Seebeck v. Finetta 179 A.D.2d 805

The plaintiff Roseanne Seebeck and the defendant, coemployees, were both acting in the course of their mutual employment when the defendant’s automobile struck Roseanne (see, Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140; Kunze v Jones, 6 AD2d 888, affd 8 NY2d 1152; Smithline v Ghessi, 25 AD2d 841; Pantolo v Lane, 185 Misc 221). Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendant since workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available to the injured plaintiff (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.