You are here: / / Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego”...
,

Plaintiff’s Recovery for On-the-Job Injury Against “Alter Ego” of Plaintiff’s Employer Limited to Workers’ Compensation

The Second Department determined that defendant’s status as the “alter ego” of plaintiff’s employer limited plaintiff’s recovery for job-related injury to Workers’ Compensation:

“The protection against lawsuits brought by injured workers which is afforded to employers by Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) also extends to entities which are alter egos of the entity which employs the plaintiff” … . “A defendant moving for summary judgment based on the exclusivity defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law under this theory must show, prima facie, that it was the alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer” … . “A defendant may establish itself as the alter ego of a plaintiff’s employer by demonstrating that one of the entities controls the other or that the two operate as a single integrated entity” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it was the alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer, since the two companies operated as a single integrated entity … . Haines v Verazzano of Dutchess, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06214, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE; IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY AND THE ELICITATION OF AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE OF THE ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL, THE DENIAL OF THE CHALLENGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE ALLEGING LACK OF DUE EXECUTION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT RECEIVED AND RETAINED THE INVOICES; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A BUS WHICH VEERED OFF THE HIGHWAY IN SNOWY CONDITIONS, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s 440.46 Motion for Resentencing Should Not Have Been Denied
PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Timely Submit a Proposed Judgment of Divorce Did Not Constitute Abandonment... Original Grantor Has the Power to Remove Restrictive Covenants from a Deed/Land...