You are here: / Workers' Compensation
,

ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM.

The Third Department determined the requested attorney’s fee was properly reduced from $2800 to $450 because the required form was not fully filled out:

Under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, the Board has broad discretion in approving an award of counsel fees … . Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 300.17 (d) (1), as relevant here, an attorney “shall file an application upon a form OC-400.1 in each instance where a fee is requested pursuant to [Workers’ Compensation Law § 24].” In approving counsel fee requests in matters where the claimant was awarded benefits, the Board “shall approve a fee in an amount commensurate with the services rendered and having due regard for the financial status of the claimant and whether the attorney . . . engaged in dilatory tactics or failed to comply in a timely manner with [B]oard rules. In no case shall the fee be based solely on the amount of the award” (12 NYCRR 300.17 [f]).

Here, the Board found counsel’s OC-400.1 fee application deficient for failing to indicate the date each service was performed and the specific amount of time for each service. Instead, counsel listed four categories of service with a total time for each category, identifying only the starting date for the initial work. The regulation mandates that the form “be accurately completed” (12 NYCRR 300.17 [d] [1]). Notably, the record confirms that counsel was familiar with a bulletin, Subject Number 046-548, issued by the Board on May 28, 2013, explaining that “[t]he form must be filled out in its entirety, including the section for the date, description, and amount of time spent on each service.” The bulletin further cautions that no fee will be approved unless “completed in its entirety” (see 12 NYCRR 300.17 [h]). A requirement for such specificity is consonant with the Board’s obligation to “approve a fee in an amount commensurate with the services rendered” … . Matter of Fernandez v Royal Coach Lines, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00368, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

 

ATTORNEYS (FEE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEE, FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM)

, , , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO INTENTIONAL (AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENT) CONDUCT.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against defendant accountants (Fuller) stemming from a workers’ compensation trust found to be more than $8 million in debt. The 2nd Department also found Supreme Court properly applied the six year statute of limitations to the allegedly intentional acts by the defendant accountants (designed to conceal the debt). The defendant accountants unsuccessfully argued the three-year (negligence/malpractice) statute of limitations should apply. Regarding the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the 2nd Department explained:

Although the duty owed by an accountant is generally not fiduciary in nature … , a fiduciary relationship exists where the accountant is “under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of [the client] upon matters within the scope of the relation” … . This inquiry is “necessarily fact-specific” … , and the dispositive factor is whether there is “confidence on one side and resulting superiority and influence on the other” … . Plaintiff alleged that Fuller held itself out to have the requisite skill and expertise to maintain the trust’s financial records, provide auditing services and — importantly — provide advice to the trust regarding the trust’s financial status. According to plaintiff, Fuller breached its fiduciary duty by knowingly and consistently concealing the trust’s true financial condition and failing to properly advise the trust regarding its solvency, causing over $8 million in damages. Accepting these allegations as true and giving plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference … , we find that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is sufficiently stated to survive Fuller’s motion to dismiss … .  New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Fuller & LaFiura, CPAs, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 00225, 3rd Dept 1-12-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/FRAUD (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/ACCOUNTANTS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS)

, ,

IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT.

In a case related to State of N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Wang, 2017 NY Slip Op 00057, 3rd Dept 1-5-17, referenced immediately above, the Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry (much too complex to summarize here), determined, inter alia, (1) the employer plaintiffs could sue as third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the workers’ compensation trust and its administrators, and (2) many of the employers’ noncontractual claims were properly dismissed as derivative, i.e., pertaining to the trust, rather than direct:

This Court recently held that an employer member of a group self-insured trust successfully alleges third-party beneficiary status by asserting “(1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between [the trust and its administrators], (2) that the contract was intended for [the employer member’s] benefit, and (3) that the benefit to [the employer member] is sufficiently immediate to indicate the assumption by [the trust and its administrators] of a duty to compensate it if the benefit is lost” … . * * *

Supreme Court dismissed many of [the noncontractual] causes of action upon determining that they belonged in the first instance to the trust rather than to the employer members and were thus derivative rather than direct. The distinction between derivative and direct claims is grounded upon the principle that a stockholder does not have an individual cause of action that derives from harm done to the corporation, but may bring a direct claim when “the wrongdoer has breached a duty owed directly to the shareholder which is independent of any duty owing to the corporation” … . In determining whether a claim is direct or derivative, a court must “look to the nature of the wrong and to whom the relief should go” and should consider “(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders, individually)” … . Accredited Aides Plus, Inc. v Program Risk Mgt., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00058, 3rd Dept 1-5-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW  (IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT)/CONTRACT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT)

, ,

MANY (BUT NOT ALL) CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that certain causes of action can go forward in a lawsuit by the Workers’ Compensation Board against administrators and trustees of the Health Care Providers Self-Insurance Trust. The trust, which was to provide workers’ compensation coverage for the trust’s members, was found to be $188 million in debt. The opinion is fact-specific and much too detailed to be summarized here. Breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, gross negligence, alter ego liability, among other theories, were alleged. Many causes of action were deemed time-barred. Some causes of action dismissed by Supreme Court were reinstated. State of N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Wang, 2017 NY Slip Op 00057, 3rd Dept 1-5-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (MANY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, MANY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, MANY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD IN AN ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT)

, ,

METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS HER ONLY REMEDY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined the defendant Metropolitan Opera’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiff is a singer who has performed with the Met for over twenty years as a featured soloist. Plaintiff, during a performance, fell from an elevated platform and was injured. She sued in negligence. The Met argued plaintiff was an employee and her only recourse was workers’ compensation benefits. The court concluded the negligence cause of action was viable:

WCL [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 2(4) defines “employee” to include “a professional musician or a person otherwise engaged in the performing arts who performs services as such for … a theatre … or similar establishment … unless, by written contract, such musician or person is stipulated to be an employee of another employer covered by this chapter.” Here, plaintiff’s services were provided to the Met pursuant to a per-performance contractor’s agreement, entered into between her corporation and the Met, that provided that the corporation “agree[d] to furnish to The Met the services of its employee, Wendy White . . ., as singer on an individual performance basis.” Plaintiff’s corporation meets the definition of an “employer covered by this chapter,” inasmuch as it is a corporation “having one or more persons in employment” (WCL § 2[3]). Thus, by written contract, plaintiff was stipulated to be an employee of another employer … .

The Met is correct that the plain language of WCL § 2(4) … draws no distinction between regular performers and stars. * * * … Here, the legislative history supports plaintiff’s suggested distinction, since it indicates that the statutory definition of employees was intended to protect the vast majority of performers, who are not “stars,” and that the statutory exception was designed to exclude those performers with the clout to negotiate the terms of their own engagements. White v Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00093, 1st Dept 1-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/STARS (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation Law precluded a lawsuit in negligence against the defendant, who was the president and a shareholder of plaintiff’s employer, Total Recall, and was the owner, in an individual capacity, of the building in which Total Recall is located. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot behind the building:

… [W]hen an employee, during the course of his or her employment, is injured due to the negligence of a coemployee, the employee’s right to compensation lies under the exclusive provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]…). Where the defendant is both the property owner and a corporate officer of the plaintiff’s employer, the defendant’s responsibility to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work may be merged, in which case, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole remedy for the plaintiff … . If, however, the “defendant’s duty of care toward [the] plaintiff was owed purely in [the] capacity as owner of the property at the accident site, and not at all as a coemployee,” Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) will not bar the plaintiff’s negligence action … .

The issue distills to whether the accident site was in an area that was exclusive to Total Recall and its employees such that defendant, as the property owner and an executive officer of Total Recall, had indistinguishable obligations to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition. Garelle v Geinitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08916, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/CORPORATION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE DETERMINING WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED.

The Third Department determined defendant’s summary judgment motion in this wrongful death action should have been denied as premature. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a workplace accident and workers’ compensation death benefits were paid out. In addition to arguing that workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy, defendant argued the corporation plaintiff sued had been dissolved and assets transferred to another corporation. Because piercing the corporate veil might be an issue, the Third Department held that plaintiff was entitled to discovery to flesh out the relationship among plaintiff’s decedent and the two corporations:

“[A] summary judgment motion is properly denied as premature when the nonmoving party has not been given reasonable time and opportunity to conduct disclosure relative to pertinent evidence that is within the exclusive knowledge of the movant or a codefendant” … . Although we have held that, “in certain situations, . . . more than one entity may be considered a plaintiff’s employer for purposes of workers’ compensation” … , defendant’s submissions fall far short of establishing that premise as a matter of law. A determination as to whether two entities are alter egos of each other requires a far more detailed record than is present here … . Pringle v AC Bodyworks & Sons, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08924, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/CORPORATION LAW (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/WRONGFUL DEATH (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)

PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE.

The Third Department determined a stop-work order was properly issued against a skydiving company for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance to its pilots and skydiving instructors. The owner of Saratoga Skydiving, Rawlins, argued that the pilots and jump instructors were independent contractors, not employees:

… [W]e find that substantial evidence supports the decision that Saratoga Skydiving, which is controlled, owned and operated by Rawlins, is required to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its pilots and jump instructors because they are employees. Foremost, considering the relative nature of their work, the pilots and jump instructors are indispensable and integral to Saratoga Skydiving’s business of offering skydiving experiences to clients … . Further, Rawlins supplied all of the equipment, including the planes and parachutes through companies solely owned and controlled by him … . He also exercised sufficient control over the work, scheduling and services provided on behalf of Saratoga Skydiving, selected who to hire for each jump and determined whether they were sufficiently efficient to be paid or should be discharged. Matter of Saratoga Skydiving Adventures v Workers’ Compensation Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 08575, 3rd Dept 12-22-16

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE)/SKYDIVING (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE)

,

ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, despite the finding by the Workers’ Compensation Board that plaintiff was not an employee entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits from the general contractor. Plaintiff was found to be an independent contractor legitimately working at the site. The definitions of employer and employee in the Labor Law and Workers’ Compensation Law are different:

The sole issue at the workers’ compensation hearing was whether plaintiff was an employee of [the general contractor] as to be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The sole finding made by the ALJ was that plaintiff was an “independent contractor” not entitled to receive workers’ compensation. The ALJ made no determination as to the scope of that work. … Plaintiff testified that he was injured when a scaffold collapsed underneath him while he was helping to load a container with construction debris.

[The owner] fails to point to any evidence demonstrating that plaintiff was not “employed” on the premises on the date of the accident, and therefore, fails to raise a triable issue of fact. Having established that he was “employed” within the meaning of the Labor Law, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his section 240(1) claim. Vera v Low Income Mktg. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08318, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

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.

With respect to one of the defendants (Irwin) the Second Department determined Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims. Plaintiff injured his knee carrying a 200 pound, 30 foot beam. The defendant’s own submission raised questions of fact about whether defendant supervised and directed plaintiff’s work, and whether plaintiff was a “special employee” such that his only remedy was Workers’ Compensation benefits:

The Supreme Court erred, however, in determining that Irwin was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it. The evidence submitted by Irwin in support of its summary judgment motion demonstrated that Irwin supervisors were present at the construction site every day supervising the work, and that these supervisors gave the plaintiff his daily work assignments. The plaintiff testified at his deposition, a transcript of which was submitted in support of Irwin’s motion, that on the date of the accident, an Irwin supervisor assigned him to the task of moving the rafters, unassisted, and instructed the plaintiff to retrieve specific equipment in furtherance of the task. When the plaintiff complained to the supervisor about the manner in which the work was to be performed, the supervisor told him to “just do it.” …

Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), an employee injured during the course of his employment is limited to recovering Workers’ Compensation benefits, and is not entitled to bring an action against the employer. This exclusive remedy rule also applies to a “special employee,” defined as “one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service[s] of another”… . Whether a special employment relationship exists is generally an issue of fact … , and requires consideration of many factors, the most of important of which is who directs and controls the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work … . Additionally, the employee must have had knowledge of, and consented to, the special employment relationship … . As discussed above, the evidence submitted by Irwin raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Irwin had the authority to supervise and control the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work. Likewise, the evidence submitted by Irwin raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Irwin had the “exclusive right to control and direct the manner, details, and ultimate result” of the plaintiff’s work, such that a special employment relationship was created … . Additionally, Irwin failed to submit evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff had knowledge of, and consented to, a special employment relationship … . Zupan v Irwin Contr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08229, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (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)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (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)

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