Narrative Opinion Summary
The judicial opinion addresses motions for leave to reargue an appeal concerning a lawsuit initiated by a plaintiff seeking damages for injuries sustained while working as a security guard. The appeal arose from a prior decision by the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding claims of damages against building owners and Schindler Elevator Corp. The court denied the building defendants' motion to reargue but granted Schindler's motion, vacating the previous decision. At trial, a jury found the plaintiff to be a special employee of the building defendants. However, the court recognized that under Workers’ Compensation Law, the special employment status requires clear evidence of control over the employee by the employer. The plaintiff was determined not to be a special employee of the building defendants; thus, the court set aside the jury verdict against them and remitted the case for a new trial. The verdict against Schindler remained unchanged as no special employment status was contested. The decision involved costs awarded to both parties against each other, and other contentions from the plaintiff were deemed irrelevant for this proceeding.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion to Set Aside Verdict Against Third Partysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury verdict regarding Schindler because no special employment relationship was alleged against them.
Reasoning: The court also erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury verdict against the building defendants, but correctly denied the motion regarding Schindler, as no special employment charge applied.
Jury Verdict and Special Employmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the Supreme Court erred in submitting the special employment issue to the jury due to a lack of evidence supporting such a relationship.
Reasoning: Consequently, it was ruled that no special employment relationship existed with the building defendants, leading to the Supreme Court's error in submitting this issue to the jury.
Reargument of Prior Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted Schindler Elevator Corp.'s motion for leave to reargue, resulting in the vacating of the previous decision and order.
Reasoning: The motion by Schindler Elevator Corp. was granted. Upon reargument, the prior decision and order dated November 15, 2011 was vacated.
Workers’ Compensation Law and Special Employmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling established that the plaintiff was not a special employee of the building defendants, thus entitling the plaintiff to set aside the jury verdict.
Reasoning: The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff was not a special employee of the building defendants; he was hired and paid by Guardian, reported to Guardian's supervisor, and the building's director of operations had no authority to control his daily tasks or work hours.