From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoskins v. MIA Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 1994
201 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Given the indicia of control and supervision over the plaintiff by the defendant MIA Associates, Inc., the Supreme Court properly found as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a special employee of MIA Associates, Inc. (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Abuso v. Mack Trucks, 174 A.D.2d 590; Richiusa v. Kahn Lbr. Millwork Co., 148 A.D.2d 690). Having received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, the plaintiff is barred from bringing this action by the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra; Abuso v. Mack Trucks, supra; Richiusa v. Kahn Lbr. Millwork Co., supra). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hoskins v. MIA Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 1994
201 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Hoskins v. MIA Associates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES HOSKINS, Appellant, v. MIA ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant and…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 799

Citing Cases

Schulze v. Associated Universities

The record demonstrates that the plaintiff was hired by C.D.I. Corporation, Northeast, which is in the…

Gregory Lewis v. Summit Office Supply, Inc.

The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross motion finding that Vincent Carbone was a special employee of…