Cobb v. AMF Bowling Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cobb v. AMF Bowling Products, Inc.

19 A.D.3d 1162, 796 N.Y.S.2d 277, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6452

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

DecidedJune 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 1162 (Cobb v. AMF Bowling Products, Inc.) 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

Cobb v. AMF Bowling Products, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 1162, 796 N.Y.S.2d 277, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Lewis County (Joseph D. McGuire, J), entered October 1, 2004. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant AMF Bowling Products, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant AMF Bowling Products, Inc. (AMF) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. AMF alleged that, at the time of her injury, plaintiff was a special employee of AMF and thus her exclusive remedy is under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A person’s status as. a special employee may be determined as a matter of law “[o]nly [1163]*1163where the undisputed facts establish surrender of complete control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” (Short v Durez Div.-Hooker Chems. & Plastic Corp., 280 AD2d 972, 972 [2001], citing Ozzimo v H.E.S., Inc., 249 AD2d 912, 913 [1998]). In opposition to AMF’s motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit raising a triable issue of fact whether AMF had complete control over her work or whether her general employer, Manpower, Inc., retained some control. Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Scudder, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Lewis County (Joseph D. McGuire, J), entered October 1, 2004. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant AMF Bowling Products, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant AMF Bowling Products, Inc. (AMF) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. AMF alleged that, at the time of her injury, plaintiff was a special employee of AMF and thus her exclusive remedy is under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A person’s status as. a special employee may be determined as a matter of law “[o]nly [1163]*1163where the undisputed facts establish surrender of complete control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” (Short v Durez Div.-Hooker Chems. & Plastic Corp., 280 AD2d 972, 972 [2001], citing Ozzimo v H.E.S., Inc., 249 AD2d 912, 913 [1998]). In opposition to AMF’s motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit raising a triable issue of fact whether AMF had complete control over her work or whether her general employer, Manpower, Inc., retained some control. Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Scudder, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 1162, 796 N.Y.S.2d 277, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-amf-bowling-products-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack