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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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 The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.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 The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.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.

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

244 A.D.2d 203 (Lavergne v. Burden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related