Plaintiff an actor in a TV commercial, alleges that he was directed to jump off a swivel-top barstool, and that he fell off the barstool before he was ready because its seat was wobbly. The action was properly dismissed as against BBDO and Pizza Hut upon a record establishing that the barstool was provided by Headquarters; that Headquarters was an independent contractor responsible for all elements of the technical production, hiring all necessary personnel, including the director and actors, setting all shooting schedules and providing all equipment and props; and that plaintiff was directed to perform the stunt by the director (see, Chainani v. Board of Educ., 87 N.Y.2d 370, 380-381). That BBDO and Pizza Hut retained the right to approve the director engaged by Headquarters, attended auditions and were present on the set during the shoot, and retained a right of veto over the manner in which the commercial was being shot does not show anything more than general supervisory control over Headquarters' work insufficient for vicarious liability purposes (see, Wright v. Esplanade Gardens, 150 A.D.2d 197, 198; Santella v. Andrews, 266 A.D.2d 62, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 762; see also, Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co., 84 N.Y.2d 896). Plaintiff's claim that the director may have been directed to include the stunt in the commercial in discussions that plaintiff observed him having with a "group" that may have included personnel from BBDO and Pizza Hut is speculation. Plaintiff admits that he does not know who the persons in the group were or what they discussed.
In view of the foregoing, as well as plaintiff's deposition testimony that he received his instructions only from Headquarters' employees, and the employment contract between plaintiff nonparty Talent Partners describing the latter, apparently a payroll processing company set up by BBDO, as plaintiff's "employer of record for income tax and unemployment insurance purposes," there is potential merit to Headquarters' proposed defense that it was plaintiff's special employer and, as such, immune from general liability in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553, 557). Accordingly, there being no showing of by plaintiff of prejudice to him, Headquarters' motion to amend its answer to assert such defense was properly granted (see, Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d 208, 209-210). However, summary judgment based on such defense was properly denied, there being an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was Headquarters' special employee (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra; Gannon v. JWP Forest Elec. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 231, 232).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.