From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Warner Brothers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 2000
277 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 3, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered April 7, 1999, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Martin Diennor, for plaintiff-appellant.

Susan A. Eisenstein, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.


Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning his status as a special employee of defendant By Any Means Necessary Cinema ("BAMN"), notwithstanding his concurrent status as a general employee of IDC Services, which provided payroll services for BAMN, and thus his personal injury action is barred by the Workers' Compensation Law (see,Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553, 557-559). The uncontroverted evidence establishes that defendants Spike Lee, Marvin Worth, Monty Ross, Jon Kulik a/k/a Jon Kilik, and Preston Holmes were all co-employees of plaintiff, which precludes an action against them (see, Workers' Compensation Law § 29; Marange v. Slivinski, 257 A.D.2d 427). The undisputed evidence also indicates that neither defendant Warner Brothers, Inc. nor defendant Forty Acres a Mule Film Works took any part in the production of the film on which plaintiff was working when allegedly injured, and that defendant Palace Fried Chicken was located too far from the accident site to have contributed to the accident's cause. There is no evidence to support a finding of negligence on the part of defendant John Catsimatides.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Hill v. Warner Brothers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 2000
277 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Hill v. Warner Brothers

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HILL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WARNER BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 56

Citing Cases

Martinez v. Fifty Two

We reverse. The movants tendered competent evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff was their special…

Ezell v. Black Butterfly Prod.

Moreover, the Personnel Agreement itself expressly set forth Black Butterfly's status as plaintiff's special…