DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion, upon renewal, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. "A special employee is described as one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another" ( Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp. 78 N.Y.2d 553, 557). While there are many factors to consider in determining whether a special employment relationship exists, the key factor is the right to direct the work and exercise control over the employee ( cf. Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra; Cameli v. Pace Univ., 131 A.D.2d 419, 420). The appellant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the injured plaintiff's employer controlled the alleged special employee. In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to such control.
In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.