The plaintiff was a probationary employee of a satellite medical practice owned by our client, a hospital. The practice was located in a suite of medical offices leased by the hospital from the co-defendant commercial landlord. The plaintiff claimed that she slipped in a puddle of water on the floor of the practice’s break room, landed on her back, and was found on the floor by co-workers who responded to her cries for help. The plaintiff was the sole witness to the actual accident. She filed a workers’ compensation claim and was found to be disabled due to her alleged back and neck injuries.  She was awarded compensation.  She then filed a negligence action against both the hospital and the landlord.  Pursuant to the express terms of the lease of the office suites, the landlord tendered the defense and indemnification of its own potential liability to the hospital, and the tender was accepted, so, in addition to being the hospital’s counsel, we became the attorneys for the landlord.  After sufficient discovery, and when plaintiff refused to discontinue the action as against the hospital on the pretense that the facts concerning the plaintiff’s employment status were unclear, we moved under CPLR Rule 3211 and Workers’ Compensation Law §11 to dismiss the claims against the hospital based upon subject matter preclusion, since the NYS Workers Compensation Board maintains exclusive jurisdiction over claims against employers for work-related injuries.  In other words, employees cannot properly sue their employers for such injuries.  Our motion was granted and the case against the hospital was dismissed.  Six weeks after that decision was rendered, we moved for summary judgment on behalf of our remaining client, the landlord, arguing that, under both the express terms of the lease and in actual practice, the hospital maintained exclusive access to its own medical practice within the landlord’s building, and the landlord could gain entry only with the hospital’s permission and assistance, or in an emergency.  In legal terms, our remaining client was a “landlord out of possession” of the premises at issue, and therefore could not have received or been charged with knowledge or constructive notice of some water spilled on the floor of the practice’s break room in the middle of the day.  The motion was granted and the case against the landlord was dismissed.  The case was thus resolved for our two clients via separate motions on separate legal issues, and no indemnity payment was made to the plaintiff.