Byrne v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byrne v. Power

309 A.D.2d 595, 765 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10559

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 595 (Byrne v. Power) 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

Byrne v. Power, 309 A.D.2d 595, 765 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendant 502-508 West 180th Street Corp.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular circumstances presented, the check issued from defendant 502-508 West 180th Street Corp. to plaintiff sufficed to raise an issue of fact as to whether that defendant was plaintiffs employer and thus subject to liability in that capacity in this Labor Law action. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the subject check was issued in payment for work he performed on the job prior to the time of the accident. He also testified that he worked for defendant Francis Travers, a co-owner of the property at which plaintiff was working at the time of his accident, and a principal of defendant 502-508, who gave certain instructions at the job site. Credibility issues [596]*596abound, respecting the parties’ conflicting claims as to the reason for issuance of the check — the only documentary evidence bearing on employment — and the capacity in which Travers acted.

We have considered 502-508’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendant 502-508 West 180th Street Corp.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular circumstances presented, the check issued from defendant 502-508 West 180th Street Corp. to plaintiff sufficed to raise an issue of fact as to whether that defendant was plaintiffs employer and thus subject to liability in that capacity in this Labor Law action. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the subject check was issued in payment for work he performed on the job prior to the time of the accident. He also testified that he worked for defendant Francis Travers, a co-owner of the property at which plaintiff was working at the time of his accident, and a principal of defendant 502-508, who gave certain instructions at the job site. Credibility issues [596]*596abound, respecting the parties’ conflicting claims as to the reason for issuance of the check — the only documentary evidence bearing on employment — and the capacity in which Travers acted.

We have considered 502-508’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 595, 765 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-power-nyappdiv-2003.