You are here: / / DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES...
, , ,

DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Count, determined the defendant, TIA, could not seek indemnification for plaintiff’s damages from third-party defendant, Freeman, because plaintiff was Freeman’s special employee for whom Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy:

Supreme Court should have dismissed TIA’s common-law indemnification and contribution claims on the ground that plaintiff was Freeman’s special employee when his accident occurred and therefore, the claims are precluded by the Workers’ Compensation Law. “A worker may be deemed a special employee where he or she is ‘transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another'” … . “While the mere transfer does not compel the conclusion that a special employment relationship exists, a court is most likely to find that it does where the transferee ‘controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … . Carey v Toy Indus. Assn. TM, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 5-2-23

Practice Point: If plaintiff’s sole remedy against a party is Workers’ Compensation, a defendant cannot seek indemnification from that party. Here plaintiff was the third-party defendant’s special employee so defendant could not seek indemnification from the third-party defendant.

 

You might also like
COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT COUNT VACATED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
Neglect Finding Based On Single Incident Reversed.
PLAINTIFF SOCIAL WORKER WAS MENACED BY A TENANT IN CITY HOUSING WIELDING A KNIFE AND SUED THE CITY; THE CITY WAS ACTING IN A GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF BY THE CITY; THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; SECURITY WAS ADEQUATE; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
IT IS ONLY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE LAW 63(3) THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (AS OPPOSED TO A COUNTY PROSECUTOR) IS EMPOWERED BRING A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWS REQUESTS FOR AN AG PROSECUTION ONLY FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH; HERE THE CHIEF JUDGE REQUESTED THE PROSECUTION; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ENJOINING THE PROSECUTION WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT, 16, IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENY PROCEEDING, WAS BEING INTERROGATED ABOUT A ROBBERY WHEN HE DRANK WATER FROM A DISPOSABLE CUP; THE INTERROGATING OFFICER SENT THE CUP FOR DNA ANALYSIS; THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATORY PURPOSE FOR THE DNA COLLECTION; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER, A CORRECTION OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED MOVING LAUNDRY BAGS BLOCKING... IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID...