Lavergne v. Burden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lavergne v. Burden

244 A.D.2d 203, 665 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11383

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 203 (Lavergne v. Burden) 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

Lavergne v. Burden, 244 A.D.2d 203, 665 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 20, 1996, dismissing the action, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 25, 1995, which, in an action under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 (1) (a) and (7) for employment discrimination based on sex and retaliatory discharge, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs allegations, given every favorable intendment, show that she was an independent contractor, not an employee (cf., Giaimo & Vreeberg v Smith, 192 AD2d 41, 45, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 803), and, because she did not “carry out work in furtherance of an employer’s business enterprise” (Administrative Code § 8-102 [5]), the action was properly dismissed. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 20, 1996, dismissing the action, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 25, 1995, which, in an action under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 (1) (a) and (7) for employment discrimination based on sex and retaliatory discharge, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs allegations, given every favorable intendment, show that she was an independent contractor, not an employee (cf., Giaimo & Vreeberg v Smith, 192 AD2d 41, 45, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 803), and, because she did not “carry out work in furtherance of an employer’s business enterprise” (Administrative Code § 8-102 [5]), the action was properly dismissed. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 203, 665 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavergne-v-burden-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack