You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who worked for Manpower Group and was injured on property owned by Crystal Springs, was not able to sue Crystal Springs. Plaintiff was deemed to be a special employee of Crystal Springs and his only remedy was Workers' Compensation:

Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), an employee who is entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer based on injuries sustained by the employee. “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'”… . ” [A] person's categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact'” … “However, the determination of special employment status may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact'” … . ” Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive. . . . Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee's work, 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. . . . The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee's work.'”  James v Crystal Springs Water, 2018 NY Slip Op 05756, Second Dept 8-15-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (WORKERS' COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
IN A SUIT BY LIMOUSINE DRIVERS AGAINST LIMOUSINE SERVICE PROVIDERS ALLEGING UNDERPAYMENT, THE DEFENDANT LIMOUSINE SERVICES PROVIDERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAXICAB EXCEPTION FROM LABOR LAW WAGE REQUIREMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVERS WERE PRECLUDED FROM SUIT BY THE TAX ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (WHERE A PARTY ASSERTS A POSITION CONTRADICTED BY INFORMATION IN TAX FORMS) (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT A STATUTORY PROHIBITION WHICH WOULD TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Respondeat Superior (Scope of Employment) Liability Succinctly Explained
SUPREME COURT’S DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO MODIFY HIS SORA RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING VIOLATED THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPANY WHICH STAFFED THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PHYSICIANS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, AS OPPOSED TO EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE COMPANY WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENT’S CUSTODY AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL (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

Petitioner Denied Right to Assistance of Counsel—Dismissal and Expungement... SNOW-REMOVAL EFFORTS NOT PARTICULARIZED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR...