You are here: / / Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity...

Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law

The Second Department determined plaintiff was defendant’s special employee and recovery from defendant was therefore barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff worked for a staffing agency and was assigned to work for defendant. After plaintiff was injured working for defendant, he was paid Workers’ Compensation benefits by the staffing agency. Because of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, plaintiff could not recover from the defendant, his special employer:

” In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment'” (…see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6]). For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer, a general employer and a special employer … . “The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

A special employee is “one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another” … . In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, a court should consider factors such as the right to control the employee’s work, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment, and the right to discharge … . “A significant and weighty factor . . . is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … .

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that this action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Evidence submitted in support of the motion demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff’s work, and that the defendant was the plaintiff’s special employer … . Wilson v A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06808, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

You might also like
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT UNDULY RESTRICTED.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
IN AN EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE COURT TO GRANT THEIR REQUEST FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S REJECTION OF A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REVEALED CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ATTEMPTING TO HELP THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BECAME WITNESSES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURANCE LAW REQUIRED SUBMITTING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS TO ARBITRATION; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANYTIME (SECOND DEPT).
PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO DISTRIBUTED AN INTIMATE PHOTO OF A PORTION OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BODY PROPERLY GRANTED, THE FACTS SUPPORTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
SEVERAL COUNTS CHARGING CONTEMPT WERE RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE TRIAL EVIDENCE, COUNTS DISMISSED (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

Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted Hearing Officer’s Failure to Ascertain Why a Witness Called by the Inmate...