Brown v. Bruckner Plaza Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Bruckner Plaza Associates

295 A.D.2d 207, 744 N.Y.S.2d 16

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

DecidedJune 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 207 (Brown v. Bruckner Plaza Associates) 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

Brown v. Bruckner Plaza Associates, 295 A.D.2d 207, 744 N.Y.S.2d 16 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered January 15, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the complaint as against defendant Toys R Us upon motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Acting as its own general contractor on a construction proj[208]*208ect, defendant Toys R Us employed Marc Norotsky as construction supervisor, and entered into purchase orders with third-party defendant C. Bros., Inc. (C. Bros.) to provide labor “as required by job superintendent” or “for clean up as directed by site management.” Toys R Us also contracted with CBI Drywall Corp. (CBI) to perform the drywall work on the project. C. Bros, and CBI shared common ownership and management. Plaintiff was injured while leveling off a dumpster pursuant to Norotsky’s direction. Norotsky hired plaintiff who reported any problem he had to Norotsky. He considered Norotsky to be his supervisor, and was directed, controlled and supervised by Norotsky with respect to his cleanup work outside the building, including the specific work he was doing when he was injured. These facts establish as a matter of law that Toys R Us was plaintiff’s special employer, notwithstanding that plaintiff was paid by C. Bros., and that a CBI foreman may have on occasion directed plaintiff to do some interior work. C. Bros., not CBI, was plaintiff’s general employer, and the labor provided by the former and subject to Norotsky’s control was distinct from the work provided by the latter. There is no showing that C. Bros, retained any authority over the work of its laborers once they were assigned to Toys R Us in accordance with the purchase orders, or that C. Bros, or CBI had any on-the-job authority over plaintiff that superseded Norotsky’s authority (see, Gannon v JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 AD2d 231; see, Kramer v NAB Constr. Corp., 282 AD2d 714, 715, lv denied 97 NY2d 606). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered January 15, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the complaint as against defendant Toys R Us upon motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Acting as its own general contractor on a construction proj[208]*208ect, defendant Toys R Us employed Marc Norotsky as construction supervisor, and entered into purchase orders with third-party defendant C. Bros., Inc. (C. Bros.) to provide labor “as required by job superintendent” or “for clean up as directed by site management.” Toys R Us also contracted with CBI Drywall Corp. (CBI) to perform the drywall work on the project. C. Bros, and CBI shared common ownership and management. Plaintiff was injured while leveling off a dumpster pursuant to Norotsky’s direction. Norotsky hired plaintiff who reported any problem he had to Norotsky. He considered Norotsky to be his supervisor, and was directed, controlled and supervised by Norotsky with respect to his cleanup work outside the building, including the specific work he was doing when he was injured. These facts establish as a matter of law that Toys R Us was plaintiff’s special employer, notwithstanding that plaintiff was paid by C. Bros., and that a CBI foreman may have on occasion directed plaintiff to do some interior work. C. Bros., not CBI, was plaintiff’s general employer, and the labor provided by the former and subject to Norotsky’s control was distinct from the work provided by the latter. There is no showing that C. Bros, retained any authority over the work of its laborers once they were assigned to Toys R Us in accordance with the purchase orders, or that C. Bros, or CBI had any on-the-job authority over plaintiff that superseded Norotsky’s authority (see, Gannon v JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 AD2d 231; see, Kramer v NAB Constr. Corp., 282 AD2d 714, 715, lv denied 97 NY2d 606). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 207, 744 N.Y.S.2d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bruckner-plaza-associates-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack