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
THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN PLAINTIFF’S RENTED STORAGE FACILITY WAS SOLD AT AUCTION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO PAY RENT; WHEN THE DEFENDANT STORAGE FACILITY OWNER REALIZED THE RENT HAD BEEN PAID BY PLAINTIFF’S PARTNER, DEFENDANT RESCINDED THE SALE OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY, WAIVED LATE FEES, RETURNED THE MONEY TO THE BUYER AND ADVISED THE BUYER TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO PLAINITFF; ALLEGING PROPERTY WAS MISSING, PLAINTIFF SUED UNDER LIEN LAW 182 FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” OF THE PROPERTY; AFTER AN EXTENSIVE STATUTORY ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED LIEN LAW 182 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Seizure of Equipment Explained
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW GUARDS, THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL WINDOW GUARDS; THEREFORE THE CONDOMINIUM COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER’S FALL FROM THE WINDOW UNDER THE FAILURE-TO-INSTALL THEORY; HOWEVER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE CONDOMINIUM’S FAILURE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF THE CITY’S WINDOW-GUARD REQUIREMENT SURVIVED THE DISMISSAL MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
HARDSHIP WAIVER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE CORE PRESERVATION AREA OF THE LONG ISLAND CENTRAL PINES BARRENS PROPERLY DENIED, ACCOMPANYING ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED, SUA SPONTE, BY THE JUDGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL HAD NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES HE WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, THEREFORE THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF PRO SE WAS NOT VALID.
NEITHER A CERTIFICATION ORDER NOR A STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 90-DAY NOTICE; THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WAS INVALID; THE MOTION TO RESTORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

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...