From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Causewell v. Barnes Noble Bookstores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1997
238 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 28, 1997


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 30, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The record discloses that the plaintiff was placed in the temporary employ of the defendant Barnes and Noble Bookstores, Inc., d/b/a Barnes and Noble Bookstore No. 716 (hereinafter Barnes and Noble), by a temporary employment agency. Barnes and Noble employees exclusively controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff's work while on the premises owned by Barnes and Noble where the accident occurred. Thus, the plaintiff was a "special employee" of Barnes and Noble as a matter of law, and the complaint should have been dismissed as barred by the Workers' Compensation Law ( see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Olsen v. We'll Manage, 214 A.D.2d 715; Garner v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 215 A.D.2d 352; Schulze v. Associated Univs., 212 A.D.2d 588; Hoskins v. MIA Assocs., 201 A.D.2d 459; Carreras v. Lawrence Aviation Indus., 201 A.D.2d 693; Cameli v. Pace Univ., 131 A.D.2d 419). Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Causewell v. Barnes Noble Bookstores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1997
238 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Causewell v. Barnes Noble Bookstores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:YVONNE CAUSEWELL, Respondent, v. BARNES AND NOBLE BOOKSTORES, INC., Doing…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 87

Citing Cases

Bellamy v. Columbia

ployee is established by virtue of Canac's comprehensive and exclusive daily control over and direction of…

Vanderwerff v. Home

eneral employer, she may not maintain an action at law against her special employer (see Workers'…