| Salimi v New York Methodist Hosp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08434 [45 AD3d 559] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Behzad Salimi, Appellant, v New York Methodist Hospitalet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ricki E. Roer andMary T. Hart of counsel), for respondents New York Methodist Hospital, Dean Martin, RobertRainer, Jason Halper, Osei Soloman, Mark Mundy, and Gillian S. Hans. Schloss & Schloss, Airmont, N.Y. (Jack Schloss of counsel), for respondents Park SlopeAnesthesia Associates, P.C., Joseph Schianodicola, Victorya Gerstheyn and DevasenaManchikalpati.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Labor Law §§ 740and 741, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 26, 2006, which, among other things,granted that branch of the motion of the defendants New York Methodist Hospital, Dean Martin,Robert Rainer, Jason Halper, Osei Soloman, Mark Mundy, and Gillian S. Hans, which were todismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1),(5), and (7), and those branches of the separate motion of the defendants Park Slope AnesthesiaAssociates, P.C., Joseph Schianodicola, Victorya Gerstheyn, and Devasena Manchikalpati, whichwere to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendants JosephSchianodicola, Victorya Gerstheyn, and Devasena Manchikalpati pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1),(5), and (7).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to therespondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.[*2]
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Courtproperly dismissed the third cause of action based upon violation of Labor Law §§740 and 741 insofar as asserted against all of the defendants, except Park Slope AnesthesiaAssociates, P.C. (hereinafter Park Slope), because the plaintiff had no employee-employerrelationship with any party other than Park Slope (see Labor Law § 740 [1] [a];§ 741 [1] [a]; Edward M. Stephens, M.D., F.A.A.P. v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,278 AD2d 16 [2000]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo andCarni, JJ., concur.