Under the unique factual circumstances of this case, the injured worker was left only to recover for workers’ compensation benefits. Try to follow this convoluted factual posture.
Defendant Madeline Felice was the homeowner whose home was the subject of a remodeling project at which the plaintiff injured himself. Felice was the president of Defendant Plakos Scrap Processors. Plakos was the plaintiff’s employer. Lic Contracting was originally hired by Felice to work on the remodeling project, and Tri State Commercial Builders, Inc. was Lic’s parent company.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the claim against Felice because she was acting within the scope of her employment by Plakos when she directed the plaintiff’s work at her residence and since the plaintiff was acting within the scope of his emploment by Plakos at the time of the accident. As such, the plaintiff was barred from commencing an action against his employer under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 29(6).
The Court also held that Supreme Court properly granted Tri State and Lic’s summary judgment motion dismissing the Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action because the entities proffered evidence demonstrating that they were not “contractors” at the time of the accident. With respect to the Labor Law Section 200 cause of action, the Court held that those defendants adduced evidence demonstrating that they had no authority to supervise or control the plaintiff or his work.
New York Civil Law 