Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ivan CONEO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WASHINGTON HEIGHTS HELLENIC ORTHODOX CHURCH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, St. Spyridon Greek Orthodox Church, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2010, which, inter alia, granted defendant Washington Heights Hellenic Orthodox Church, Inc.'s (WHHOC) motions for a directed verdict and/or judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the extent of setting aside the jury verdict insofar as it included a finding that denied WHHOC's Workers' Compensation defense, i.e, that plaintiff's employer was not the alter ego of WHHOC, and directed a new trial on that issue, unanimously modified, on the law, judgment directed in favor of defendant as to the Workers' Compensation defense, the complaint dismissed, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The trial evidence established that the school, where plaintiff worked at the time of his injury, was the alter ego of WHHOC. Specifically, WHHOC, through its governing board (i.e., the Parish Council), exercised domination and control over the school, completely controlling its day-to-day functions including its decision making and finances. WHHOC owned the properties on which the school and St. Spyridon Church were situated. Moreover, the school and Spyridon Church were not separate legal entities, but rather, in effect, were unincorporated divisions of WHHOC that functioned in accordance with WHHOC's directives (see e.g. Aguirre v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Helena, 277 A.D.2d 126 [2000]; Pappas v. Greek Archdiocese of N. & S. Am., 178 A.D.2d 104 [1991] ). Given such proof of an alter ego relationship, the plaintiff can be deemed an employee of WHHOC, which would afford WHHOC a complete defense to the plaintiff's negligence action under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, thereby warranting dismissal of his claims (see e.g. Aguirre, 277 A.D.2d 126; Smith v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, 252 A.D.2d 805 [1998]; Pappas, 178 A.D.2d 104).
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them moot and/or unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 17, 2011
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)