Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The trial court properly denied the motion of the third-party defendant Gotham Building Maintenance Corporation (hereinafter Gotham) for summary judgment as there is a question of fact regarding the employment status of the plaintiff and thus whether the action is barred pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law ( see, Mathew v. Marriott Facility Mgt., 224 A.D.2d 668). The question of whether a special employment relationship exists is usually an issue of fact, and the issue may in some cases turn on the terms of a written contract ( see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553, 557-558). Given the conflicting provisions of the contract between Gotham and the defendant third-party plaintiff, the City of New York, an issue of fact remains as to the plaintiff's employment relationship with them, which could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion ( see, Mathew v. Marriott Facility Mgt., supra, at 668).
Gotham's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thompson, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.