AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

JAMES HOSKINS, Appellant, v. MIA ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant. TEMP FORCE, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Given the indicia of control and supervision over the plaintiff by the defendant MIA Associates, Inc., the Supreme Court properly found as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a special employee of MIA Associates, Inc. (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553; Abuso v. Mack Trucks, 174 A.D.2d 590; Richiusa v. Kahn Lbr. Millwork Co., 148 A.D.2d 690). Having received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, the plaintiff is barred from bringing this action by the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra; Abuso v. Mack Trucks, supra; Richiusa v. Kahn Lbr. Millwork Co., supra). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HOSKINS v. MIA ASSOCIATES, INC
(Feb 7, 1994)