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.
Thomas HOFWEBER, et al., appellants, v. Robert SOROS, et al., defendants, Melissa Schiff Soros, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated August 28, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendant Melissa Schiff Soros for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, and denied their motion to strike the defense of workers' compensation and to compel discovery.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants Robert Soros and Melissa Schiff Soros maintain a residence on Enterprise Road in Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, where they employed the plaintiff Thomas Hofweber (hereinafter the plaintiff) to care for their horses. Since they employed a number of people at the residence, the Soroses created the company Household Services II, LLC, as an administrative service to handle payroll, medical benefits, and workers' compensation insurance. The plaintiff signed a statement identifying the Soroses as his employers, even though his paycheck came from Household Services II, LLC. The plaintiff identified Melissa Schiff Soros as his “boss.” Melissa Schiff Soros submitted an affidavit in which she averred that only she and Robert Soros had the power to fire their employees.
The plaintiff was injured in an accident on the premises on January 22, 2004, for which he received workers' compensation benefits. He also commenced this action to recover damages for his injuries. In an order dated August 28, 2007, the Supreme Court granted the motion of the defendant Melissa Schiff Soros for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. We affirm.
In general, workers' compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment (see Workers' Compensation Law § 11; Cronin v. Perry, 244 A.D.2d 448, 664 N.Y.S.2d 123). The receipt of workers' compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer (see Croche v. Wyckoff Park Assoc., 274 A.D.2d 542, 711 N.Y.S.2d 490). A person's classification as a special employee is usually a question of fact, but can also be decided as a matter of law (see Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 553, 557, 578 N.Y.S.2d 106, 585 N.E.2d 355; Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Lab., 17 A.D.3d 661, 662, 793 N.Y.S.2d 530; Adams v. Virco Mfg. Corp., 251 A.D.2d 608, 675 N.Y.S.2d 550). In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, a “significant and weighty feature” is “who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee's work” (Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 N.Y.2d at 558, 578 N.Y.S.2d 106, 585 N.E.2d 355; see Alvarez v. Cunningham Assoc., L.P., 21 A.D.3d 517, 518, 800 N.Y.S.2d 730). Other principal factors include “who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer's or the general employer's business” (Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Lab., 17 A.D.3d at 662, 793 N.Y.S.2d 530).
Here, in light of the control and direction which Melissa Schiff Soros exercised over the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was her special employee as a matter of law, and thus, that the instant action is barred by the plaintiff's recovery of workers' compensation benefits (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 23, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)