Harrigan v. Friend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrigan v. Friend

237 A.D.2d 976, 656 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3601

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 14, 1997·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law {see, Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]). Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff was in the special employ of defendant Video-seal Corp. at the time of her accident (see, Kinney v Kuhn, 122 AD2d 569, 570; see generally, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law {see, Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]). Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff was in the special employ of defendant Video-seal Corp. at the time of her accident (see, Kinney v Kuhn, 122 AD2d 569, 570; see generally, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Harrigan v. Friend, 237 A.D.2d 976, 656 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 976 (Harrigan v. Friend) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related