Sierra v. C.C. Controlled Combustion Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sierra v. C.C. Controlled Combustion Co.

308 A.D.2d 401, 764 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9794

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 401 (Sierra v. C.C. Controlled Combustion Co.) 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

Sierra v. C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., 308 A.D.2d 401, 764 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered November 29, 2002, which denied the motion of defendant C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the claims asserted against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]) since conflicting deposition testimony raises factual issues as to whether defendant-appellant exerted complete and exclusive control over plaintiffs work so as to render it plaintiffs special employer (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557 [1991]; Sween v Spacemaster Bldg. Sys., 300 AD2d 32 [2002]; Sanfilippo v City of New York, 239 AD2d 296 [1997]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered November 29, 2002, which denied the motion of defendant C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the claims asserted against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]) since conflicting deposition testimony raises factual issues as to whether defendant-appellant exerted complete and exclusive control over plaintiffs work so as to render it plaintiffs special employer (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553, 557 [1991]; Sween v Spacemaster Bldg. Sys., 300 AD2d 32 [2002]; Sanfilippo v City of New York, 239 AD2d 296 [1997]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 401, 764 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sierra-v-cc-controlled-combustion-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack