Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

209 A.D.2d 814, 618 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11127

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 814 (Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal 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

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp., 209 A.D.2d 814, 618 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 4, 1993, which ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation.

Claimant’s decedent was a security guard employed by 36th Street Terminal Corporation (hereinafter 36th Street) working at a site operated by Universal Maritime Service Corporation (hereinafter Universal). The subject claim for benefits was brought after decedent was run over and killed by a forklift driven by one of Universal’s employees. Following various proceedings, the Board ultimately decided that decedent was employed both by 36th Street as the general employer arid by Universal as the special employer. Although claimant asserts [815]*815that the determination as to Universal is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, we cannot agree. Several factors, including evidence that 36th Street was owned by Universal, worked exclusively for Universal, and that all work equipment and assignments for 36th Street employees were provided and directed by Universal, sufficiently show the existence of an employment relationship under the circumstances.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 4, 1993, which ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation.

Claimant’s decedent was a security guard employed by 36th Street Terminal Corporation (hereinafter 36th Street) working at a site operated by Universal Maritime Service Corporation (hereinafter Universal). The subject claim for benefits was brought after decedent was run over and killed by a forklift driven by one of Universal’s employees. Following various proceedings, the Board ultimately decided that decedent was employed both by 36th Street as the general employer arid by Universal as the special employer. Although claimant asserts [815]*815that the determination as to Universal is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, we cannot agree. Several factors, including evidence that 36th Street was owned by Universal, worked exclusively for Universal, and that all work equipment and assignments for 36th Street employees were provided and directed by Universal, sufficiently show the existence of an employment relationship under the circumstances.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 814, 618 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rainone-v-36th-street-terminal-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack