From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06263.

Decided March 15, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered June 24, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Martin, Clearwater Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Patricia D'Alvia, William P. Brady, and Nancy Breslow of counsel), for appellant.

Robert K. Young Associates, Bellmore, N.Y. (Gary J. Young of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When an employee elects to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from his general employer, a special employer is shielded from any action at law commenced by the employee ( see Kramer v. NAB Constr. Corp., 282 A.D.2d 714; cf. Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553). A person's categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact ( see Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra at 557; Hintze v. Brookhaven Natl. Lab., 278 A.D.2d 456). Here, the defendant failed to establish that it directed the work and exercised such a degree of control over the plaintiff Ernest Smith that he must be considered its special employee. Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.

RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Smith v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST SMITH, ET AL., respondents, v. KINGSBROOK JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 862

Citing Cases

Franco v. Kaled Mgt. Corp.

General employment is presumed to continue, but this presumption is overcome upon clear demonstration of…

Soto v. Akam Associates, Inc.

Other relevant factors include who is responsible for the payment of wages, who furnishes the worker's…