Crowell v. Larkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crowell v. Larkins

300 A.D.2d 1044, 752 N.Y.S.2d 479

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 1044 (Crowell v. Larkins) 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

Crowell v. Larkins, 300 A.D.2d 1044, 752 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Major, J.), entered March 13, 2002, that denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff was a coemployee of defendant.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he was struck in the left eye by a nail from a nail gun operated by defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff was his coemployee and thus the action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion. The issue whether a plaintiff is an independent contractor or a coemployee of the defendant may be determined as a matter of law only “where [the] evidence is undisputed, and the facts are compellingly clear” (Greene v Osterhoudt, 251 AD2d 786, 787; see Melbourne v New York Life Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 296, 297; Crage v Kissing Bridge Ski Area, 186 AD2d 987, 988, lv denied 81 NY2d 702). That cannot be said here, and thus defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Wright v LaBrake, 267 AD2d 578, 579). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Major, J.), entered March 13, 2002, that denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff was a coemployee of defendant.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he was struck in the left eye by a nail from a nail gun operated by defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff was his coemployee and thus the action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion. The issue whether a plaintiff is an independent contractor or a coemployee of the defendant may be determined as a matter of law only “where [the] evidence is undisputed, and the facts are compellingly clear” (Greene v Osterhoudt, 251 AD2d 786, 787; see Melbourne v New York Life Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 296, 297; Crage v Kissing Bridge Ski Area, 186 AD2d 987, 988, lv denied 81 NY2d 702). That cannot be said here, and thus defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Wright v LaBrake, 267 AD2d 578, 579). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 1044, 752 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowell-v-larkins-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack