Crean v. Queens Boulevard Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crean v. Queens Boulevard Tenants Corp.

252 A.D.2d 352, 675 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7899

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 31, 1997, which, in an action by a building employee against the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff will not be heard to assert that his employer was not defendant, but rather the building’s managing agent, having accepted workers’ compensation benefits awarded upon the basis that defendant was plaintiff’s employer (Zabava v 178 E. 78, 212 AD2d 406). In any event, the undisputed evidence that defendant issued and was listed on plaintiff’s W-2s as plaintiff’s employer, that defendant paid plaintiff’s wages, benefits and workers’ compensation insurance, and that plaintiff was injured while making repairs to defendant’s building establishes that plaintiff was, at the least, a “special employee” of defendant at the time of the accident (supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 31, 1997, which, in an action by a building employee against the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff will not be heard to assert that his employer was not defendant, but rather the building’s managing agent, having accepted workers’ compensation benefits awarded upon the basis that defendant was plaintiff’s employer (Zabava v 178 E. 78, 212 AD2d 406). In any event, the undisputed evidence that defendant issued and was listed on plaintiff’s W-2s as plaintiff’s employer, that defendant paid plaintiff’s wages, benefits and workers’ compensation insurance, and that plaintiff was injured while making repairs to defendant’s building establishes that plaintiff was, at the least, a “special employee” of defendant at the time of the accident (supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Crean v. Queens Boulevard Tenants Corp., 252 A.D.2d 352, 675 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

252 A.D.2d 352 (Crean v. Queens Boulevard Tenants Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related