SEEBECK v. FINETTA

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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 N.Y.2d 140; Kunze v. Jones, 6 A.D.2d 888, affd 8 N.Y.2d 1152; Smithline v. Ghessi, 25 A.D.2d 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). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.