From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Niranjan v. Airweld, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2003
302 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07118

Submitted January 30, 2003.

February 24, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated July 12, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Manny Niranjan (hereinafter the plaintiff) was injured in the course of his employment as a temporary worker assigned by Sigma Staffing (hereinafter Sigma) to work at a warehouse operated by the defendant, Airweld, Inc. (hereinafter Airweld). Airweld demonstrated that the work done by the plaintiff for Airweld was done under the exclusive direction and control of Airweld employees and that Airweld provided the plaintiff with the training and equipment needed to do the job. It is also clear from the plaintiff's deposition that he looked only to Airweld employees for instructions about what to do and when and how to do it. This is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff was a special employee of Airweld as a matter of law (see Carino v. Kenmare Remodeling, 292 A.D.2d 555; Causewell v. Barnes Noble Bookstores, 238 A.D.2d 536; Martin v. Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 271 A.D.2d 579, 580).

It is undisputed that the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits from a policy procured by Sigma. Accordingly, Airweld's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff is barred from maintaining an action against it pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law should have been granted (see Workers Compensation Law §§ 11, 29; Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Pirrotta v. EklecCo, 292 A.D.2d 362; Carino v. Kenmare Remodeling, supra).

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Niranjan v. Airweld, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2003
302 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Niranjan v. Airweld, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MANNY NIRANJAN, ET AL., respondents, v. AIRWELD, INC., appellant

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 640

Citing Cases

Zhicay v. 116 Wilbur Place, LLC

CWG established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it based on…

Roberson v. Moveway Trans

We affirm the order insofar as appealed from. Moveway unequivocally established its prima facie entitlement…