You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

With respect to one of the defendants (Irwin) the Second Department determined Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff injured his knee carrying a 200 pound, 30 foot beam. The defendant’s own submission raised questions of fact about whether defendant supervised and directed plaintiff’s work, and whether plaintiff was a “special employee” such that his only remedy was Workers’ Compensation benefits:

The Supreme Court erred, however, in determining that Irwin was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it. The evidence submitted by Irwin in support of its summary judgment motion demonstrated that Irwin supervisors were present at the construction site every day supervising the work, and that these supervisors gave the plaintiff his daily work assignments. The plaintiff testified at his deposition, a transcript of which was submitted in support of Irwin’s motion, that on the date of the accident, an Irwin supervisor assigned him to the task of moving the rafters, unassisted, and instructed the plaintiff to retrieve specific equipment in furtherance of the task. When the plaintiff complained to the supervisor about the manner in which the work was to be performed, the supervisor told him to “just do it.” …

Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), an employee injured during the course of his employment is limited to recovering Workers’ Compensation benefits, and is not entitled to bring an action against the employer. This exclusive remedy rule also applies to a “special employee,” defined as “one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service[s] of another”… . Whether a special employment relationship exists is generally an issue of fact … , and requires consideration of many factors, the most of important of which is who directs and controls the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work … . Additionally, the employee must have had knowledge of, and consented to, the special employment relationship … . As discussed above, the evidence submitted by Irwin raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Irwin had the authority to supervise and control the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work. Likewise, the evidence submitted by Irwin raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Irwin had the “exclusive right to control and direct the manner, details, and ultimate result” of the plaintiff’s work, such that a special employment relationship was created … . Additionally, Irwin failed to submit evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff had knowledge of, and consented to, a special employment relationship … . Zupan v Irwin Contr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08229, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

You might also like
ONLY A CLOSE RELATIVE COULD SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER SIXTEEN TO SUPPORT THE AGE-ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; HERE APPELLANT’S COUSIN’S ALLEGATION APPELLANT WAS FOURTEEN WAS INSUFFICIENT.
THE SNOWPLOW DRIVER DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Doctrine Does Not Apply Where Party Invoking It Contributed to the Creation of the Emergency
REMOVING PORTABLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION SETTING A DATE FOR THE CLOSING ON DEFENDANT’S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN DEFAULT IF THE CLOSING DID NOT TAKE PLACE BY THAT DATE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO “TIME OF THE ESSENCE” AGREEMENT AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL... ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANNULLED,...