Erny v. Distribution Systems of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erny v. Distribution Systems of America, Inc.

283 A.D.2d 391, 724 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4700

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 391 (Erny v. Distribution Systems of America, 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

Erny v. Distribution Systems of America, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 391, 724 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Distribution Systems of America, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[392]*392Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment since there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Ruth Medina, whose job it was to deliver advertising materials supplied by the appellant along a specified route, was an employee of the appellant or an independent contractor (see, Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742; Matter of Rivera, 69 NY2d 679, cert denied 481 US 1049; Matter of Field Delivery Serv., 66 NY2d 516; Matter of Di Martino, 59 NY2d 638; Lane v Lyons, 277 AD2d 428; Mason v Spendiff, 238 AD2d 780).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Distribution Systems of America, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated June 8, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[392]*392Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment since there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Ruth Medina, whose job it was to deliver advertising materials supplied by the appellant along a specified route, was an employee of the appellant or an independent contractor (see, Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742; Matter of Rivera, 69 NY2d 679, cert denied 481 US 1049; Matter of Field Delivery Serv., 66 NY2d 516; Matter of Di Martino, 59 NY2d 638; Lane v Lyons, 277 AD2d 428; Mason v Spendiff, 238 AD2d 780).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 391, 724 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erny-v-distribution-systems-of-america-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack