You are here: / / Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
, ,

Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”

In finding defendant was not plaintiff’s (Vasquez’) “special employer” (and therefore could not take advantage of the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law), the First Department wrote:

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, made on the ground that the complaint is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § § 11, 29[6] …, was properly denied. Defendant maintains that it was Vasquez’s special employer because it hired all building employees, including Vasquez, and was also responsible for firing. However, plaintiff asserts the evidence establishes that defendant was not Vasquez’s special employer. Specifically, the property owner, not defendant, paid and provided benefits to Vasquez. Defendant’s evidence failed to establish as a matter of law that it “control[led] and direct[ed] the manner, details and ultimate result of” Vasquez’s work …, and plaintiff acknowledges questions of fact exist on this issue. If the issue of defendant’s status as a special employer is resolved in plaintiff’s favor, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on liability on her Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Vasquez v Cohen Bros Realty Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 02682, 1st Dept, 4-23-13​

 

You might also like
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS A RECURRENT DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT AS A WITNESS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DESPITE LATE NOTIFICATION; THE DIRECTED VERDICT WAS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Contract Provision Protected Contractee from Damages for Delay Caused by Regulators​
INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.
“Bad Faith Claims Handling” Cause of Action Properly Dismissed As Duplicative of Breach of Contract Cause of Action/Sanctions Appropriate for Inclusion of Dismissed Cause of Action in Amended Complaint
Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive, Court Suggested Everyone In the Lineup Should Have Been Given an Eye Patch Because the Complainant Described the Perpetrator as Having a “Deformed Eye”
DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.

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

Employee-Status Proven and Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Provision Applied;... Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered