Puckett v. County of Erie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puckett v. County of Erie

244 A.D.2d 865, 665 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12191

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 865 (Puckett v. County of Erie) 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

Puckett v. County of Erie, 244 A.D.2d 865, 665 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Donald J. Braasch Construction, Inc. (defendant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims on the ground that Robert A. Puckett (plaintiff) was a special employee of defendant. On the record before us, plaintiffs employment status at the time of the accident cannot be determined as a matter of law (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558). While plaintiff worked sporadically for defendant at the construction site pursuant to an informal agreement between his general employer and defendant, he also worked at the site for his general employer. Defendant has not shown “a clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” (Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra, at 557). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Donald J. Braasch Construction, Inc. (defendant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims on the ground that Robert A. Puckett (plaintiff) was a special employee of defendant. On the record before us, plaintiffs employment status at the time of the accident cannot be determined as a matter of law (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557-558). While plaintiff worked sporadically for defendant at the construction site pursuant to an informal agreement between his general employer and defendant, he also worked at the site for his general employer. Defendant has not shown “a clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” (Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra, at 557). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 865, 665 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puckett-v-county-of-erie-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack