From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Virco Manufacturing Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Based upon the indicia of control and direction which the defendants exercised over the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendants as a matter of law, and thus, that the instant action is barred by the plaintiffs recovery of workers' compensation benefits ( see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553, 558; Cameli v. Pace Univ., 131 A.D.2d 419, 420).

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Adams v. Virco Manufacturing Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Adams v. Virco Manufacturing Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JACOB ADAMS, JR., Appellant, v. VIRCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 29, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 550

Citing Cases

Syku v. La Barranca Realty Corp.

Under these circumstances, the defendant established that the plaintiff was its special employee.…

Pedro Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

In this regard, a general employee of one employer may also be a special employee of another employer ( see…