Flatau v. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flatau v. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp.

40 A.D.2d 990, 338 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 990 (Flatau v. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp.) 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

Flatau v. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp., 40 A.D.2d 990, 338 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 8, 1971, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case at a jury trial limited to the issue of liability. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeal did not present questions of fact. In our opinion, it was error to dismiss the complaint in the absence of proof [991]*991that defendant had secured compensation insurance covering plaintiff's employment (Paulsen v. Kahn, 248 App. Div. 744). The burden of such proof was on defendant in connection with its affirmative defense that procurement of workmen’s compensation benefits was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, since the complaint, which specifically alleged that plaintiff was not an employee qf defendant, did not disclose a state of facts bringing the matter within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Nilsen v. American Bridge Co., 221 N. Y. 12; cf. Kuhn v. City of New York, 274 N. Y. 118, 129). We are further of the opinion that the issue of whether plaintiff was defendant’s special employee was one of fact for the jury. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 8, 1971, in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case at a jury trial limited to the issue of liability. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeal did not present questions of fact. In our opinion, it was error to dismiss the complaint in the absence of proof [991]*991that defendant had secured compensation insurance covering plaintiff's employment (Paulsen v. Kahn, 248 App. Div. 744). The burden of such proof was on defendant in connection with its affirmative defense that procurement of workmen’s compensation benefits was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, since the complaint, which specifically alleged that plaintiff was not an employee qf defendant, did not disclose a state of facts bringing the matter within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Nilsen v. American Bridge Co., 221 N. Y. 12; cf. Kuhn v. City of New York, 274 N. Y. 118, 129). We are further of the opinion that the issue of whether plaintiff was defendant’s special employee was one of fact for the jury. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 990, 338 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flatau-v-fairchild-camera-instrument-corp-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack