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
RIDING A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC PATH USED BY BOTH BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS IS NOT A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH TRIGGERS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TOO CLOSE IN THE ON-COMING LANE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT.
BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
COURT MUST CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT BAR RAISING THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE THE CHILD WITNESSED A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR A FINDING FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Easement Granted in General Terms

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...