From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Degruchy v. Xerox Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 30, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to renew its prior motion for summary judgment (see, Stewart v Taylor, 167 A.D.2d 846, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 805). Upon renewal, Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff was a special employee of defendant as a matter of law and his acceptance of workers' compensation benefits as an employee of his general employer precluded him from bringing this personal injury action against defendant (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Jeffords v Professional Bldrs./Remodelers Group, 186 A.D.2d 989; Lesanti v Harmac Indus., 175 A.D.2d 664; Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. Millwork Co., 148 A.D.2d 690; Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 A.D.2d 419).

Pursuant to a contract between plaintiff's general employer and defendant, plaintiff was "supplied" to defendant to perform work as a technician. The record reveals that, although plaintiff's general employer was responsible for paying plaintiff's wages and maintaining workers' compensation for him, "all essential, locational and commonly recognizable components of the work relationship" were between plaintiff and defendant (Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra, at 558). Plaintiff reported to work each day at defendant's plant and the work he performed was supervised, directed and controlled exclusively by defendant's employees. No representative of the general employer was present at defendant's plant when plaintiff performed his work. Further, it is undisputed that plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of his general employer.


Summaries of

Degruchy v. Xerox Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Degruchy v. Xerox Corporation

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD DEGRUCHY, Appellant, v. XEROX CORPORATION, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 30, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

Richmond v. BMC Industries, Inc.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the cross motions of defendants and third-party defendant for…

Ozzimo v. H.E.S., Inc.

rred in determining that plaintiff was a special employee of H.E.S. as a matter of law and in dismissing the…