Holmes v. Business Relocation Services, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Holmes v. Business Relocation Services, Inc.

30 N.E.3d 896, 25 N.Y.3d 955, 8 N.Y.S.3d 253

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 2015

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 N.E.3d 896 (Holmes v. Business Relocation Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holmes v. Business Relocation Services, Inc., 30 N.E.3d 896, 25 N.Y.3d 955, 8 N.Y.S.3d 253 (N.Y. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. As a matter of law, it cannot be said that Business Relocation Services, Inc., the alleged special employer, overcame the presumption of continuing general employment by “clear [ly] demonstrati [ng] . . . surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” (Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557 [1991]). The Appellate Division correctly determined that issues of fact remained as to the alleged special employment relationship.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. As a matter of law, it cannot be said that Business Relocation Services, Inc., the alleged special employer, overcame the presumption of continuing general employment by “clear [ly] demonstrati [ng] . . . surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” (Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557 [1991]). The Appellate Division correctly determined that issues of fact remained as to the alleged special employment relationship.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.E.3d 896, 25 N.Y.3d 955, 8 N.Y.S.3d 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-business-relocation-services-inc-ny-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack