| Vincente v Silverstein Props., Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03290 [83 AD3d 586] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Tirso Vincente, Appellant, v Silverstein Properties, Inc., etal., Respondents. Silverstein Properties, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v AmericanBuilding Maintenance Co. of New York, Sued Herein as American Building MaintenanceCompany, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for SilversteinProperties, Inc., River Place I, LLC, River Place Holdings Limited Partnership and River Place IHoldings, LLC, respondents. Jeffrey Samel & Partners, New York (Judah Z. Cohen of counsel), for American BuildingMaintenance Co. of New York, respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered September 17, 2009,dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered March 6, 2009,which, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order, entered May 22, 2008, granting defendants'motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the May 22,2008 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff was defendants' special employee, which entitleddefendants to rely on the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law(see Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; see also Villanueva v Southeast Grand St.Guild Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 37 AD3d 155 [2007]). "A key factor in determiningwhether a special employment relationship exists is who controls and directs the manner, detailsand ultimate result of the employee's work" (id. at 156 [citation and internal quotationmarks omitted]). The evidence established that defendants, the owner and property manager ofthe work site, supervised, directed and controlled plaintiff's work (see e.g. Ayala v Mutual Hous. Assn.,Inc., 33 AD3d 343 [2006]; Duque v Pace Univ., 308 AD2d 422 [2003], lvdismissed 14 NY3d 903 [2010]; Lane v Fisher Park Lane Co., 276 AD2d 136,139-140 [2000]).[*2]
We reject plaintiff's contention that the evidence failed toestablish that he was a special employee of the "River Place" defendants. Pursuant to the plainlanguage of section 3.2 of defendants' property management agreement, the supervisory staff ofthe defendant property manager were also employees of the defendant owner, thus, plaintiff'swork on the premises was exclusively directed by employees of both entities.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.