Loglisci v. Niko Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loglisci v. Niko Associates

303 A.D.2d 254, 755 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2742

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 254 (Loglisci v. Niko Associates) 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

Loglisci v. Niko Associates, 303 A.D.2d 254, 755 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 24, 2001, which, in an action by a stagehand for personal injuries, inter alia, denied defendant producers’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was defendants’ special employee is raised by deposition testimony to the effect that defendants’ supervisory control over plaintiff was less than comprehensive and exclusive and that plaintiff’s general employer, the theater’s apparent owner, continued to exercise some control over plaintiffs work (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557, 558 [1991]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 24, 2001, which, in an action by a stagehand for personal injuries, inter alia, denied defendant producers’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was defendants’ special employee is raised by deposition testimony to the effect that defendants’ supervisory control over plaintiff was less than comprehensive and exclusive and that plaintiff’s general employer, the theater’s apparent owner, continued to exercise some control over plaintiffs work (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557, 558 [1991]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 254, 755 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loglisci-v-niko-associates-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack