Pinto v. TWR Express Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinto v. TWR Express Corp.

22 A.D.3d 481, 803 N.Y.S.2d 640

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 481 (Pinto v. TWR Express 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

Pinto v. TWR Express Corp., 22 A.D.3d 481, 803 N.Y.S.2d 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated October 19, 2004, which granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there was no employment relationship between the driver involved in the plaintiffs accident and the defendant dispatcher (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Holcomb v TWR Express, Inc., 11 AD3d 513 [2004]). The evidence, which included a franchise agreement, clearly established that the driver was an independent contractor and that the defendant dispatcher exercised only incidental supervision or control over the driver in the performance of his work (see Holcomb v TWR Express, Inc., supra; Abouzeid v Grgas, 295 AD2d 376, 377 [2002]). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Adams, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated October 19, 2004, which granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there was no employment relationship between the driver involved in the plaintiffs accident and the defendant dispatcher (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Holcomb v TWR Express, Inc., 11 AD3d 513 [2004]). The evidence, which included a franchise agreement, clearly established that the driver was an independent contractor and that the defendant dispatcher exercised only incidental supervision or control over the driver in the performance of his work (see Holcomb v TWR Express, Inc., supra; Abouzeid v Grgas, 295 AD2d 376, 377 [2002]). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Adams, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 481, 803 N.Y.S.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinto-v-twr-express-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack