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
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SIGNING OF A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED; RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND BURDENS OF PROOF EXPLAINED.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).
The Prosecutor’s Acting As an Unsworn Witness (Suggesting He Had Been Present at a Trial In Which the Defense Expert Had Lied) and The Prosecutor’s Repeated Questioning of the Expert and Another Defense Witness About Their Alleged Lying Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial on the Murder Count
IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT SINCE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN 1998-99 AND SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AN UPDATED PRESENTENCE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED AN INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PEDESTRIAN STRUCK WHILE LAWFULLY IN CROSSWALK ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE HAD BEEN VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED INITIALLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IS TOO LOUD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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

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