Hoskins v. MIA Associates, Inc. — 201 A.D.2d 459

Majority

p. 459

James Hoskins, Appellant, v MIA Associates, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant. Temp Force, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[609 NYS2d 799]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated December 6, 1991, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 NY2d 553 ; Abuso v Mack Trucks, 174 AD2d 590 ; Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., 148 AD2d 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

p. 460

Trucks, supra; Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co., supra). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp. 78 NY2d 553 N.Y. 1991-11-25 p. 459
Abuso v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 174 AD2d 590 N.Y. App. Div. 1991-06-10 p. 459