Wright v. Gorman-Multimedia Communications, Inc.

268 A.D.2d 218, 701 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 4, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1999, which, inter alla, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured, while attending a sales conference, when she was struck in the head by a video camera operated by third-party defendant Louis Hocevar. The motion court properly found that there is a triable question of fact as to whether, at the time of the accident, Hocevar was functioning as an independent contractor, or as an employee of defendant Gorman for whose work-related conduct Gorman would be answerable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In this connection, we note that Gorman, the production company retained to create a video of activities at the sales conference, hired a “staff” of eight to shoot the sales conference video, sup[219] plied the video camera used by Hocevar, and exercised a measure of supervisory authority respecting the manner in which the video was shot (see, e.g., Kelly v Warner Bros., 230 AD2d 829). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Wright v. Gorman-Multimedia Communications, Inc., 268 A.D.2d 218, 701 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

268 A.D.2d 218 (Wright v. Gorman-Multimedia Communications, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Window King LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 00857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Stutterheim v. First Shot Productions
137 A.D.3d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)