Stampone v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stampone v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 573, 954 N.Y.S.2d 450

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 573 (Stampone v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.) 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

Stampone v. Consolidated Edison, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 573, 954 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. There are questions of fact as to whether a special employment relationship exists between plaintiff and defendants, including who controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of plaintiffs work (see Vincente v Silverstein Props., Inc., 83 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]; Bautista v David Frankel Realty, Inc., 54 AD3d 549, 550 [1st Dept 2008]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, De-Grasse, Román and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about January 30, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. There are questions of fact as to whether a special employment relationship exists between plaintiff and defendants, including who controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of plaintiffs work (see Vincente v Silverstein Props., Inc., 83 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]; Bautista v David Frankel Realty, Inc., 54 AD3d 549, 550 [1st Dept 2008]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, De-Grasse, Román and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 573, 954 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stampone-v-consolidated-edison-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack