You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD...
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined GTLF was plaintiff’s special employer and Atrium was plaintiff’s general employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined plaintiff was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits from Atrium, his general employer, for a work-related injury. Therefore, plaintiff could not sue GTLF, his special employer, in negligence based upon that work-related injury. GTLF was entitled to summary judgment:

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” … .

“In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, ‘who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work’ is a ‘significant and weighty feature,’ but is not determinative of the issue” … . Indeed, “[m]any factors are to be considered when deciding whether such a special employment relationship exists and not one factor is decisive” … . Other principal factors to be considered include “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” … . General employment will be presumed to continue unless there is a “clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” … .

Here, in addition to a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and a copy of the agreement between GTLF and Atrium, GTLF submitted an affidavit of its CEO, who averred, among other things, that after GTLF retained Atrium for “certain aspects of [the] plaintiff’s employment, including payroll and Workers’ Compensation insurance . . . [GTLF] maintained the same supervision and control of the plaintiff regarding his duties as a” brand ambassador. Based upon this evidence, GTLF established, prima facie, that GTLF was the plaintiff’s special employer … . Samuel v Petainer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00925, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how to determine whether an employer is a general employer or a special employer for purposes of Worders’ Compensation benefits. If a worker receives Workers’ Compensation benefits from the worker’s general employer for a work-related injury, the employee cannot sue the special employer in negligence for that same injury.

 

You might also like
BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF.
Plaintiff’s Failure to Replace Manhole Cover Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury
DESPITE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT, AFFIDAVIT FROM EXPERT PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFECT FOUND TO BE TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Not Enough Time Passed to Invoke Constructive Notice of Icy Condition Under “Storm Progress Rule”
Access to Financial Support from Family Properly Considered In Calculating Father’s Child Support and Child Care Obligations
CHAIN ACROSS DRIVEWAY WAS NOT “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

THIS LAWSUIT BY AN EMPLOYER AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY USED PLAINTIFF’S... THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BY AN INSURER SEEKING SUBROGATION FOR A CLAIM ALREADY...