Adams v. Benderson Development Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Benderson Development Co.

207 A.D.2d 1024, 617 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10332

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1024 (Adams v. Benderson Development Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Benderson Development Co., 207 A.D.2d 1024, 617 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred insofar as it denied the motion of 1210 Colvin Avenue, Inc. (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established, as a matter of law, that it was plaintiff’s employer (see, Perez v Tru-Fit Mfg. Co., 152 AD2d 461, 463). An employee may not bring a common-law action against her employer in its capacity as the owner of property where a job-related injury occurred (Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 158; Jackson v Tivoli Towers Hous. Co., 176 AD2d 918). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred insofar as it denied the motion of 1210 Colvin Avenue, Inc. (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established, as a matter of law, that it was plaintiff’s employer (see, Perez v Tru-Fit Mfg. Co., 152 AD2d 461, 463). An employee may not bring a common-law action against her employer in its capacity as the owner of property where a job-related injury occurred (Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 NY2d 152, 158; Jackson v Tivoli Towers Hous. Co., 176 AD2d 918). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1024, 617 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-benderson-development-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack