CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaints and cross claims against defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, formerly known as Cingular Wireless LLC, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained while lifting a security gate at her place of employment. The defendants argued that the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), asserting they were either special employers or alter egos of the plaintiff’s employer. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they were special employers or alter egos. The court also found no merit in the defendants' alternative grounds for summary judgment, concluding they failed to meet their burden regarding the creation or notice of the dangerous condition, or that the condition was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
CLEARY, JENNA v. WALDEN GALLERIA LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaints and cross claims against defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, formerly known as Cingular Wireless LLC, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained while lifting a security gate at her place of employment. The defendants argued that the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), asserting they were either special employers or alter egos of the plaintiff’s employer. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they were special employers or alter egos. The court also found no merit in the defendants' alternative grounds for summary judgment, concluding they failed to meet their burden regarding the creation or notice of the dangerous condition, or that the condition was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.