McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 3868, 150 A.D.3d 480, 51 N.Y.S.3d 882

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

DecidedMay 11, 2017

Docket3985 156865/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3868 (McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.) 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

McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 3868, 150 A.D.3d 480, 51 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered November 30, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established prima facie that the injured plaintiff was its special employee and therefore this action is barred by the workers’ compensation law’s exclusivity provision (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]). The comprehensive *481 property management agreement between defendant and plaintiff’s general employer (the property owner) provided that the maintenance and repair of the building resided exclusively with defendant. Defendant interviewed and hired plaintiff, whose work as an engineer was in furtherance of defendant’s operation and maintenance of the building, and defendant had the authority to terminate plaintiff’s employment, which it ultimately exercised. Defendant provided plaintiff with the materials and equipment he needed to perform his work, and directed, supervised and controlled plaintiff’s work (see e.g. Vincente v Silverstein Props., Inc., 83 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with his employment checks showing the general employer as the payor and his employment termination notice showing the general employer as his employer (see e.g. Villanueva v Southeast Grand St. Guild Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 37 AD3d 155, 157 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff offered no evidence to controvert defendant’s showing that it hired him and controlled, supervised, and otherwise dictated all facets of his work in the building (see id. at 156).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered November 30, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established prima facie that the injured plaintiff was its special employee and therefore this action is barred by the workers’ compensation law’s exclusivity provision (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]). The comprehensive *481 property management agreement between defendant and plaintiff’s general employer (the property owner) provided that the maintenance and repair of the building resided exclusively with defendant. Defendant interviewed and hired plaintiff, whose work as an engineer was in furtherance of defendant’s operation and maintenance of the building, and defendant had the authority to terminate plaintiff’s employment, which it ultimately exercised. Defendant provided plaintiff with the materials and equipment he needed to perform his work, and directed, supervised and controlled plaintiff’s work (see e.g. Vincente v Silverstein Props., Inc., 83 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with his employment checks showing the general employer as the payor and his employment termination notice showing the general employer as his employer (see e.g. Villanueva v Southeast Grand St. Guild Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 37 AD3d 155, 157 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff offered no evidence to controvert defendant’s showing that it hired him and controlled, supervised, and otherwise dictated all facets of his work in the building (see id. at 156).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3868, 150 A.D.3d 480, 51 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmahon-v-cohen-bros-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack