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
Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers Placed on Sidewalk by City
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RESERVE ON THE MOTION AND LET THE MATTER GO TO THE JURY; AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS INCONSISTENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Defect Properly Deemed Trivial as a Matter of Law
SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1).
RPAPL 1306 REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE FILING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE FILING WAS EIGHT DAYS LATE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE ORIGINAL BORROWERS AGAINST PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED, CIVIL CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR BOTH TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevail

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...