Duque v. Pace University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duque v. Pace University

308 A.D.2d 422, 764 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9982

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 422 (Duque v. Pace University) 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

Duque v. Pace University, 308 A.D.2d 422, 764 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant was, at all relevant times, directly responsible for supervising, directing and controlling plaintiff’s work, the motion court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee of defendant and, accordingly, that he is barred from maintaining this action (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558 [1991]; Brunetti v City of New York, 286 AD2d 253, 254 [2001]; Gannon v JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 AD2d 231, 232 [2000]; and see Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419 [1987]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant was, at all relevant times, directly responsible for supervising, directing and controlling plaintiff’s work, the motion court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee of defendant and, accordingly, that he is barred from maintaining this action (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558 [1991]; Brunetti v City of New York, 286 AD2d 253, 254 [2001]; Gannon v JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 AD2d 231, 232 [2000]; and see Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419 [1987]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 422, 764 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duque-v-pace-university-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack