You are here: / / Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity...

Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law

The Second Department determined plaintiff was defendant’s special employee and recovery from defendant was therefore barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff worked for a staffing agency and was assigned to work for defendant. After plaintiff was injured working for defendant, he was paid Workers’ Compensation benefits by the staffing agency. Because of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, plaintiff could not recover from the defendant, his special employer:

” In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and 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 … . “The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

A special employee is “one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another” … . In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, a court should consider factors such as the right to control the employee’s work, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment, and the right to discharge … . “A significant and weighty factor . . . is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … .

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that this action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Evidence submitted in support of the motion demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff’s work, and that the defendant was the plaintiff’s special employer … . Wilson v A.H. Harris & Sons, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06808, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

You might also like
THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE GRANTED FATHER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ATTORNEY’S FEES) WITHOUT AFFORDING MOTHER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD; THE JUDGE RULED ON FATHER’S MOTION AFTER DECIDING TO GRANT MOTHER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE.
Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Statutorily-Mandated Venue Is Not Jurisdictional and Is Waivable

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

Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted Hearing Officer’s Failure to Ascertain Why a Witness Called by the Inmate...