Adams v. Virco Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Virco Manufacturing Corp.

251 A.D.2d 608, 675 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7918

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 608 (Adams v. Virco Manufacturing Corp.) 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. Virco Manufacturing Corp., 251 A.D.2d 608, 675 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 19, 1997, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Based upon the indicia of control and direction which the defendants exercised over the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendants as a matter of law, and thus, that the instant action is barred by the plaintiffs recovery of workers’ compensation benefits (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 558; Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419, 420). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 19, 1997, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Based upon the indicia of control and direction which the defendants exercised over the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendants as a matter of law, and thus, that the instant action is barred by the plaintiffs recovery of workers’ compensation benefits (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 558; Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419, 420). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 608, 675 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-virco-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack