Urena v. Pace University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Urena v. Pace University

1 A.D.2d 208, 767 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1 A.D.3d 208, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11922

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 208 (Urena v. Pace University) 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

Urena v. Pace University, 1 A.D.2d 208, 767 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1 A.D.3d 208, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[209]*209Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2002, inter alia, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proof demonstrating that plaintiff, although hired by third-party defendant OneSource, worked exclusively under the direct supervision and control of defendant at its Pleasantville campus, with defendant possessing the plenary right to have plaintiff discharged, to dictate plaintiff’s work hours, wages, vacation schedule, work assignments and the manner of their completion, established that plaintiff was a special employee of defendant (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]). Accordingly, this action against defendant to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in the course of his employment is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Gannon v JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 AD2d 231 [2000]; Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419 [1987]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[209]*209Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2002, inter alia, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proof demonstrating that plaintiff, although hired by third-party defendant OneSource, worked exclusively under the direct supervision and control of defendant at its Pleasantville campus, with defendant possessing the plenary right to have plaintiff discharged, to dictate plaintiff’s work hours, wages, vacation schedule, work assignments and the manner of their completion, established that plaintiff was a special employee of defendant (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]). Accordingly, this action against defendant to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in the course of his employment is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Gannon v JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 AD2d 231 [2000]; Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 AD2d 419 [1987]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 208, 767 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1 A.D.3d 208, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urena-v-pace-university-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack