You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON...

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Mid-Queens demonstrated that plaintiff maintenance worker, although employed by KGA, was a special employee of Mid-Queens. Therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for his injury was Workers’ Compensation:

“Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) restrict an employee from suing his or her employer or coemployee for an accidental injury sustained in the course of employment” … . “[A] general employee of one employer may also be in the special employ of another, notwithstanding the general employer’s responsibility for payment of wages and for maintaining workers’ compensation and other employee benefits” … . “Although no one factor is determinative, a significant and weighty feature in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work—in other words, who determines all essential, locational and commonly recognizable components of the [employee’s] work relationship” … . “Other factors 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” … .

Here, the moving defendants made a prima facie showing that Mid-Queens was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it was the injured plaintiff’s special employer. The evidence submitted by the moving defendants established that Mid-Queens controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the injured plaintiff’s work, the injured plaintiff’s work was done in furtherance of Mid-Queens’ business, and Mid-Queens had the right to discharge the injured plaintiff … . Spasic v Cammeby’s Mgt. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05616, Second Dept 8-1-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Waiver and Release Signed by Plaintiff When She Rented a Segway Vehicle Precluded Her Personal Injury Action Even Though the Accident Occurred During a Tour Conducted by Defendant’s Employees
Bar Patron Was Beaten to Death by Other Patrons—Defendants (Bar and Premises Owners) Were Unable to Demonstrate the Attack Was Not Foreseeable and their Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Attack—Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied
THE PROMISSORY NOTE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent Valid
Question of Fact Whether Three-Family Residence Was Owner-Occupied–Administrative Code’s Exemption from Liability for Failure to Remove Ice and Snow May Not Apply
THE DEFENDANT BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK PROVED THE DE-ACCELERATION NOTICE WAS PROPERLY TRANSMITTED TO PLAINTIFF, RENDERING THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
PROVIDING AN UNREDACTED STATEMENT TO THE JURY BY MISTAKE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRED REVERSAL.
ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR ROBBERY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL WAS ERROR, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE... CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND...