From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duemmel v. Ruggeri-Minster, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 31, 1992
179 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 31, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Callahan, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff was its special employee. "A special employee is described as one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another" (Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553, 557). In this case, the uncontroverted facts established that plaintiff, although paid by his general employer, was injured while performing services under the control and at the direction of defendant, for the exclusive benefit of defendant. In those circumstances, plaintiff was defendant's special employee as a matter of law, and plaintiff's receipt of Workers' Compensation benefits bars this action (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra; Lesanti v. Harmac Indus., 175 A.D.2d 664; Jeras v East Mfg. Corp., 168 A.D.2d 889, appeal withdrawn 78 N.Y.2d 953; Cameli v. Pace Univ., 131 A.D.2d 419).


Summaries of

Duemmel v. Ruggeri-Minster, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 31, 1992
179 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Duemmel v. Ruggeri-Minster, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL DUEMMEL, Respondent, v. RUGGERI-MINSTER, INC., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 31, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 522

Citing Cases

Levine v. Pontiac

the question of whether a person can be categorized as a special employee is generally one of fact, the…