You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS...
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OR A CO-EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s “Workers’-Compensation-exclusive-recovery” defense should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident driving defendant’s van, which plaintiff alleged was not properly maintained. Defendant unsuccessfully argued plaintiff was a special employee or a co-employee of defendant and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy was Workers’ Compensation:

“Generally, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer or co-employee for injuries sustained 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 … . “A special employee is ‘one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another,’ and limited liability inures to the benefit of both the general and special employer” … . Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive. Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee’s work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business. The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work” … . * * *

… [T]he evidence did not support a conclusion that a special employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant … at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the defendant was not a co-employee of the plaintiff at … the time of the accident. The defendant testified that prior to [the accident], he … began working for another car service company, and that, at the time of the accident, he was in Texas training for another employment opportunity. Chiloyan v Chiloyan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04696, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RECEIVED THE FULL BENEFIT OF A LOAN AGREEMENT; THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THE LOAN AGREEMENT IS UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING RECORDED MORTGAGE DID NOT BEAR HIS SIGNATURE (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER’S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT’S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).
Written Notice Prerequisite to Suit Against County Did Not Apply to Plaintiff’s Being Struck by a Traffic Signal Cable While Walking on a Sidewalk
Statute of Frauds Precluded Recovery for Both Contract and Quantum Meruit Causes of Action
INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus After Arrival at the School—Child Had Not Yet Entered the Orbit of the School’s Authority—Although School Voluntarily Undertook the Duty to Determine the Whereabouts of Absent Students, the Parents Were Not Aware of that Policy and Therefore Could Not Have Relied On It

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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FLOODED... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT RAISED FOR...