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
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).
Evidence Supported Conviction of Police Officer for Divulging an Eavesdropping Warrant
1/2 Inch Variation in Stair-Step Height (In Violation of Fire Safety Code) Established Negligence
USING A NEW YORK VIRTUAL LAW OFFICE PROGRAM (VLOP) ONLY AS A MAILING ADDRESS AND AS AN AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN NEW YORK HAVE A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK, HOWEVER THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE VLOP ATTORNEY IS NOT A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).
No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL BUT STATED IN HER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE SLIPPED ON ICE; THE AFFIDAVIT CREATED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

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